EXAMINING TRUST IN JAMAICA

Document Sample
EXAMINING TRUST IN JAMAICA Powered By Docstoc
					EXAMINING TRUST (or MISTRUST) IN
           JAMAICA




         Paul Andrew Bourne




                 i
EXAMINING TRUST (or MISTRUST) IN
           JAMAICA


                               By



             Paul Andrew Bourne


         Health Research Scientist and Social Demographer




Photograph was taken by Paul Andrew Bourne

                                ii
Copyright© 2009 by Department of Community Health and Psychiatry, Faculty of Medical
Sciences, the University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, Kingston, Jamaica.




National Library of Jamaica Cataloguing Card Number:


ISBN: 978-976-41-0235-9




EXAMINING TRUST (or MISTRUST) IN JAMAICA




Bourne, Paul Andrew




While the copyright of this text is vested in Paul Andrew Bourne, the publisher is the
Department of Community Health and Psychiatry, UWI, Mona Campus, and no parts of the
chapters may be reproduced wholly or in part without the expressed written permission of both
author and publisher.


All rights reserved. Published April, 2009




Covers were designed by Paul Andrew Bourne



Printed and bound in Jamaica
                                             iii
                                Acknowledgement


       Trust is what holds a society together. And although legislations are critical to the
functioning of a stable democracy, it is held together by the strength of trust in all relationship.
Some people may believe that within the context of highly developed legislative frameworks in
the world, we are still have many fundamental problems and that these are substantially related
to challenges due to interpersonal distrust. Despite the complex legislative structure of America
and its economy, there are issues relating to cooperation. Many of the challenges that we face
including crime, cynicism, suspicion of other character, dishonesty and integrity are producing
people who are not distrust but people who are highly responsive to other intent and motives as
general perception is that one should protect him/herself from another person’s ‘bad’ intent or
motive.


       Within the context of the exponential increases in crime and victimization and the
undeniable correlation between trust and corruption (i.e. crime), it is difficult to comprehend why
Caribbean intelligentsia have not launched a thorough investigation of trust in seeking to
understand the regions crime problems, and other issues.


       Thus, this study seeks to provide explanations for many of the issues in the Caribbean
region from the perspective of trust. As trust is what explains cooperation, confidence in others
and institutions, the willingness to communicate with others without fear as people believe that
others are ‘good’ and can be trust.


       Ergo, I would like to thank the Centre for Leadership of Governance, Department of
Government, the University of the West Indies at Mona, Jamaica, for the opportunity to utilize
its dataset, from which this book is made possible.


       In addition to the aforementioned congratulatory message offered to Centre for
Leadership and Governance, I would wholeheartedly like to thank – all my colleagues and
associates – who gave me the impetus to complete this project
                                                 iv
                                           Prologue

Cronyism, extortion, misappropriation of funds, personal graft and greed, lows level of
accountability, political patronage, low risk of detection, low risk of punishment, murders, and
cost overruns are just a few of a plethora of things that have arisen and continue to baffle public
officials as well as governments in Jamaica, as their effective solutions seem to be far removed
from our grasp, competence and capacity.          Some people believe that Jamaica is the most
murderous nation of the world and be this reality (or not), Jamaicans are predominantly polite,
hospitable, understanding, kind, compassionate, friendly, and anti-murderous class of people.
We continue to look and analyze many of the tenets of crimes and victimization, corruption in
particular cronyism, extortion, political patronage and low risk of detection of crimes from the
vantage point of actual statistics of these issues. This discourse lacks a critical component, that
of trust. As trust is that crux of democracy, cooperation, civic engagement, understand between
and among different cultures and people, and it that driving force that allows people to
communicate with cynicism or suspicion.

         Trust is more than ‘cooperation between people, groups, institutions or a coalescing of any
pair of those events to social capital, credibility, accountability, transparency, lower transactional
costs, development, loyalty, communication, positive expectations and energy, integrity, honesty,
morale, intent, character, to results. Thus, trust is the crucible component that explains the core
of the functioning of a people, a society, a nation, a wider geopolitical space. Unlike statistics
that may provide some realism to what is fact, one perception of someone character, intent,
credibility, goodwill or his/her honesty all affect interpersonal, organizational and other forms of
trust.

          People on seeing someone for the first time make an assessment (value judgement) of the
other individual’s intent, character, and credibility without information. It is this expectation
(negative or positive) that drives the people’s behaviour to others (people, institutions, things or
otherwise).      Thus, a number of the cronyism, extortion, and misappropriation of funds,
dishonesty, political patronage and low accountability are due to the other’s perspective that
                                                   v
he/she needs to do this in order to competitive because the other person’s intentions are not
‘good’. With this cosmology, distrust is such that people are usually suspicious of the next
person’s motives as each party operates under the premise that there is ‘negative’ expectation of
the other party’s motives, intent or integrity.

       This explains why someone will physically harm another person who steps on his/her
shoe, toe, or material possession because the feeling is that the next person’s intent, motives and
integrity is questionable in particular it is ‘bad’ against the vulnerable party. There is a
cosmology in Jamaica that there is always an agenda behind a motive, intent or behaviour. This
has tarnished the psyche of the average person so much that people evaluate another’s attitude,
intent, motives and honest based on this general self-distrust (or trust), which expands into a base
for the understanding of others.

       In seeking to explain a number of the fundamental social problems that have been
unnerving the society of Jamaica, I believe that what lies at the core of these issues is trust. This
book puts together a number of research on different typologies of trust, models that were
develop to explain correlates of trust, political participation, wellbeing, religiosity as studies have
shown that these issue are interrelated, and will foster a more in-depth understanding of some of
the issues in our society.

       One of the challenges that some people use to predetermine the intent, motive or integrity
of another is past performance (or results). For some people there trust is adjudged on past ‘track
record’ of the other person. It is not limited to interpersonal relations as this expands to
businesses. Basically, our confidence (or trust) for someone’s or entity’s grows based on tested
and proven past results. People measure their current expectations based on past performance of
the other party. And if information is not had on the party, we usually speculate on expectation
based on initial classification of the person or entity.

       Hence, future trust is based on past, present happenings. The past happening (or
situations) are had through socialization, experiences and performance.         It follows that ‘track
record’ or reputation is substantially used to interpret credibility, intent or motive of an
individual. And this guide people future expectation of people – as how people experience,

                                                   vi
interface with events and think will fundamentally guide their future behaviour. Thus, trust is
built on a multi-sociocultural premise. Within this context, people will not cooperate with
someone if past experiences were ‘negative’ or disbeneficial for the receiving party.

        The embodiment of aforementioned issues explains distrust, uncooperation, low
expectation, reprisal, cynicism, suspicion, guided communication, low confidence, anarchy, and
disconnect between the paying of taxes and cooperating with all forms of government because
distrust the intent, motive, character, integrity and honest of others in particular governments.

        Slavery was not kind to developing countries, in particular those in the Caribbean, and
successive governments and related institutions have not sought to reconstruct the society that
trust be a core function. Many of these organizations are not cognizant of the importance of trust
to democracy, cooperation, confidence and interpersonal relations that they do not watch their
inactions (and actions). Crime, corruption and victimization as well as that venom that current
exits in the society are due to the dishonesty, injustices, and the level of distrust that the society
is built on.

        Many people are cognizant of the challenges – which include dishonesty, injustices,
inequalities, low tract record, low transparency and accountability, low credibility,
responsibilities and ‘bad’ intent that distrust is so intense that silence is a prefer tool in
communication that wrong intent or motives. The low informant cosmology in the nation is
primarily as a result of the distrust, and this cannot be lowered by merely speaking it into being.
The distrust (low trust) is not only affecting interpersonal as well as organization involvement, it
is also affecting development, production, efficiency, productivity as if people cannot
cooperative, and be confident around each other, and they will not be able offer their best, as
division does not create increased production nor improves productivity.

        Trust is that adhesive that holds a society (company, nation, or community) together.
Although each individual is a separate entity, people existence is dependent on others more so
since mass production, industrialization and globalization. In this global milieu, each person is a
microorganism that collective comes together for the effective functioning of the whole. It is
trust that allows for the cooperation and operations of the whole, and not the dominance of any

                                                 vii
particular entity. Thus, the survival of the group is dependent on the collective consensus, and so
the group depends on the unit, and the unit functions because of the collective whole. Hence, we
cannot deny the fact that civic engagement is based on a generalized belief of cooperativeness
and confidence in the particular entity.

       This text looks at a number of those aforementioned issues as they are crucible to stable
democracy, cooperation, confidence and institutional responsibility. Trust, ergo, is the building
block for many of the challenges currently facing the nation. Hence, this book examines those
issues as they will provide explanations from an empirical standpoint for social woes affecting
the society. What Jamaica needs at this time is someone who can inspire that trust, resort hope,
accept the disparities seek to honestly address them; and not hesitate in establishing competence,
credibility, trustworthiness, and extend trust to the distrusting among us. Because by distrusting
someone (or entity) we miss all the opportunities of harmonious living between humans.




                                                                     Paul Andrew Bourne
                                              Health Research Scientist and Social Demographer
                                               Department of Community Health and Psychiatry
                                                                    Faculty of Medical Sciences
                                               The University of the West Indies, Mona Campus
                                                                              Kingston, Jamaica




                                                viii
                                   Table of Contents


                                                                                           Page


Acknowledgement                                                                               iv

Prologue                                                                                       v

1 – Introduction                                                                              1

2- Understanding Interpersonal Trust (distrust) and identifying its Correlates                12

3- Public Confidence in Organizations                                                         39

4 - An examination of Generalized Trust in Jamaica                                           104

5 - Modeling Political Trust in Jamaica                                                      146

6 - Examining Wellbeing of the Working Aged Population in Jamaica.                           189

7 - Does Trust Change Well-Being?                                                            223

8 - Trust (or distrust) and Morale in the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF)                   256

9 - Religiosity and its association with Subjective Psychological Wellbeing of Jamaicans     385

10 - Religiosity and Trust                                                                   428

11 - Dispelling Some of the Myths on Unconventional Political Participation in Jamaica       460

12 - Political Participation, and Trust, and its Correlates                                  493

13 - Public Opinion and Voting Behaviour of Jamaicans: Pre-2007 General Elections            520

14 - Crime, Tourism and Trust in Jamaica                                                     573

15 - Curbing Deviant Behaviours in Secondary Schools                                         623
                                                  ix
16 - The positives: A content (or Textual) Analysis of an address to nation by [Former]   686
Prime Minister of Jamaica, The Most Hon. P. J. Patterson on Sunday March 21, 2004

17- Political Participation: Using cross-sectional data to model its correlates           704

18- Unconventional political participation in a middle-income developing country          729


19- Epilogue                                                                              752




                                                  x
                                                                                        Chapter


                                                                                               1


Introduction



The Jamaican society is undersieged by criminality and this has been forthcoming for some time

now. It is well documented in voluminous texts and different scholarly materials that the period

of 1970s and 1980s accounted for the nation’s current crime rates, corruption and silence.

According to Anthony Harriott, “The problem of crime in the Caribbean – it causes, its

consequences, and its control – emerged as a major concern during the 1990s” (2004, p. 1). The

levels of murders, and corruption – extortion, misappropriation of funds, dishonesty, low

accountability and transparency, bureaucracy, and fraud have created a milieu of frustration,

confusion, suspicion, cynicism - have created a general cosmology of intense silence and

distrust that is embedded in the sub-consciousness of the people of the society.


       Every kind of peaceful cooperation among men is primarily based on mutual trust and
       only secondarily on institutions such as courts of justice and police (Albert Einstein, in
       Covey, & Merrill, 2006, p. 273)

       There are two main perspectives on many issues that appear to be unfolding in Caribbean

societies, in particular Jamaica – Is corruption a perception? And secondly, corruption’s

influence on the society is minimal. But, what is the fact on corruption? Does corruption exists?

And, are there indicator through the actions (or inactions) of political leaders that implies or

accept the realities of corruption?


       The public has been claiming that corruption exists, and this was concretized by

Transparency International, TI (1999-2007). TI has reported that corruption has been increasing


                                                1
for some time now in Jamaica, and whenever these reports are published there is a general

decrying of this as a fabrication of the nation’s realities. The discourse has taken on a new tone

when the former prime minister of Jamaica – Mrs. Portia L. Simpson-Miller – admitted in her

inaugural speech that she will be tackling the issue of corruption. Mrs. Simpson-Miller says:


        I want to pledge to the Jamaican people to work tirelessly to eradicate corruption and
        extortion. I am committed to their eradication (Jamaica Information Service, 2003, p.1)


        Embodied in the former Prime Minister’s inaugural presentation is the acceptable that

corruption is realty as is the perception and the reports from Transparency International. The

element that this has failed to highlight is the correlation between corruption and other

socioeconomic issues. There is an irrefutable fact that corruption is associated with development

and democracy (Transparency International, 1999-2007; Waller, Bourne, Minto, & Rapley,

2007; Fukuyama 1995), and that another condition is equally important in his discourse, trust.


        Trust is the crux of a stable democracy (Francis Fukuyama, 1995) and corruption

(Uslaner 2005). And there is no denial that development is negative correlated to trust or vice

versa. Modernization, post-modernization, mass production, and capitalism rest on specialization

and division of labour. People’s input in the production process is a sector thereof, and no one is

completely responsibility for the creation of any product or service. The production process is

sub-divided into sectors, and this requires many human resources in the production of final

products. Each sector relies on the other, all is cooperation of each.          It is through this

understanding and processes that trust is the core of modern industrial society, and this is equally

the case in traditional (or prehistoric) societies.




                                                      2
       There is no doubt the distrust explains many of the uncooperation, mis-confidence and

negative expectation of others, which is used to interpret others intent and motives (Fukuyama

1995; Uslaner 2005; Transparency International 2005; Covey, & Merrill, 2006). Thus, people

interpret dishonesty, past performance, and corruption as indicators of low integrity and

character, and so they are their mutual action is to act as being deceived, which will commence

the growth of more conflicts, crimes, victimization, corruption, dishonesty and negative

expectation as people reciprocate the perceived distrust from other’s actions (or inactions). In

such a society social consensus is difficult, peace is an elusive construct, and crimes will be high.

Embedded in low trusting societies is the negative expectation of others. This makes it difficult

for each person to communicate effective and openly with other as there is low confidence in the

intent and motives of another.


       This text is a collection of study on different typologies of trust in Jamaica and there

various correlates, as well as political participation and wellbeing as these are all integrated in

trusting (or low trusting) societies. Chapter 1 provides an insightful description of the entire text

in order to provide its readers with a comprehensive understanding of the fundamentals of trust

and its related explanations for many of today’s ills.


       Chapter 2 begins this text because we believe that trust, in particular interpersonal trust, is

the most crucible component of a stable democracy, development, productivity, production,

economic    growth,    cooperation    between     and    among    people    including    institutions,

communication, the provide for the basis upon which one interprets intent, motive, credibility,

results and human existence. It is so primary that its inclusion was automatic and provides

answers to issues of crime problem, the silence that emerge due to distrust and how low trust

societies are likely to disintegrate into anarchy, low civic engagement, bureaucracy, high cost

                                                  3
production and low development and growth. Within the context of aforementioned issue,

chapter 2 provide an insightful understanding of what determines interpersonal trust (or distrust)

in order that we become knowledge of justifications of many of the problems that continue to

grapple us that appear unsolvable despite our attempt to address many of these issue.


        Like Albert Einstein, we believe that while interpersonal trust is fundamental to

cooperation, stability of a democracy, development of all facet of a society, the building of social

capital, civic engagement in various entities is substantially due to people’s trusting of these

institutions. And people cooperation with many of these institutions is crucible to socio-political

and economic development. It should be understood, that a justice system will be ineffective in a

society that there is low trust (or distrust) as such a system cannot legislate trust in it or its related

institutions. This becomes even more complex for police officer who must serve, protect and

reassure. In an atmosphere where there is distrust, silence dominance, low communication on

issues is a byproduct as it person is fearful and distrusting of the next person. The duty of the

police is becomes exponentially more difficulty when distrust for that institution is high because

of past performance (or the lack of). Chapter 3 looks at trust in organizations as this is primate

stable democracy, civic cooperation, productivity, production and development of social capital.


        Chapter 4 was aptly fitting as it examined ‘generalized trust’ in the nation. The chapter

investigates the correlates of ‘generalized’ trust as well as modeled generalized trust in Jamaica

using observational research data. Often times trust is viewed through the lens of interpersonal,

organizational, or political trust, but infrequently they are coalesced as a single variable to

measure generalized trust. And when the termed generalized trust is mentioned, it usually

captures self-reported interpersonal trust. In this chapter the term ‘generalized trust’ is used in a



                                                    4
broader context that self-reported interpersonal trust to a single variable that embodies

interpersonal and organizational trust.


          Trust is not specialized to interpersonal and organizational trust, but of equal importance

is political trust. The aforementioned chapters have excluded this pivotal area and so chapter 5 is

fittingly about political trust. Chapter 5 builds a model on what constitutes political trust. This

chapter will make for interesting and insightful understanding of what not only comprises

political trust but those factors that influence the people’s interest in political matters. Political

trust in this chapter is measured as self-reported trust in government, and undoubtedly fosters a

better understanding of people’s suspicion and cynicism about successive governments in the

nation.


          Distrust does not only influence tax evasion and avoidance, and interpersonal relations

but also people’s wellbeing. Thus, we believe that it is appropriate that a few chapters be

dedicated to quality of life (i.e. wellbeing) of people and the role trust plays in affecting this

human state. In chapter 6 and 7, the authors examine the role of trust in changes in quality of life

as well to investigate the wellbeing of many Jamaicans who are of working age (15 to 60 years).

These two chapters will not only provide direct answer to question of ‘does trust affect quality of

life (or wellbeing) but also the different correlates of wellbeing and impact of trust among

different typologies of variable.


          Having established interpersonal, organizational, political and generalized trust in the

nation and what are the correlates in each mentioned trust within the context that Jamaica is

suffering from a crime phenomenon – that recently has claimed the life of the Chairman of the

Jamaica Urban Transit Corporation (i.e. JUTC), June 28, 2008, to date the discussion has


                                                   5
excluded the quality of life of police officers, their morale status at this time and the trust in the

force and degree of trust of police officers for different sectors within the JCF. Chapter 8

addresses this gap, while arguing that job performance due to job dissatisfaction as well as the

problems of low morale and distrust are accountable for how office approach ‘serve, protect and

reassure’ in the execution of their daily functions. This chapter – chapter 8 – is the longest of this

19-chapter book. The primary and essential rationale for this comprehensive and in-depth

chapter is the delicacy of the role of the police in crime reduction in the society. It follows that

with the degree and typologies of crimes that are committed and the low rate of detection of

these matters, a thorough investigation of police officer’s state of mind as well as quality of life

must be pivotal to crime reduction. This chapter explores, examines and identified different

correlates of morale, and special typologies of trust. It makes for a greater reading as it provides

vital information to an understanding of the state of police officers, and how these realities are

helping to withhold the policies of crime reduction in the nation.


       The nation – Jamaica – has been looking for a saviour to the crime phenomenon for some

time now, and this has been to no avail. Crime, fear of crime and victimization affect us all and

so any examination for a solution of crime must understand the people of the society. Thus,

chapter 9 comes in this wake as we seek to understand the people, the reason and the crime in an

attempt to formulate solution this ‘bloody’ phenomenon. Chapter 9 is about the subjective

wellbeing of the people of Jamaica. The people with whom we refer are the religious and non-

religious- using religiosity as the yardstick to evaluate this social reality.       This chapter is

followed by none other than chapter 10 that looked at religiosity and trust. In this chapter the

authors examine the distinction between lowly and highly religiosity and who trust more. Given

that trust is crucible to social solidarity and democracy as well as cooperation, we believe that a


                                                  6
distinction between the trust level of those groups (religiosity) were important in helping us to

different aspect to the socialization process and how this helps to fashion a better understanding

of many of the social ills within the society.


       Publications from the statistical institute of Jamaica (STATIN) has shown that in excess

of 70% of Jamaicans are religious, and this begs the question – ‘What is the crime statistics so

high?’ And what explains the high levels of unconventional participations? The answers to those

questions are complex. However, we believe that some answers need to be forthcoming and we

provide chapter 11 that examine unconventional (or unorthodox) political participation in

Jamaica followed by chapter 12 (general political participation and trust), chapter 13 (voting

behaviour), and chapter 14 that examines subjective wellbeing of voters.


       Having established the different areas (chapter 2 through 12), within the context of the

high crime statistics and the level of fear of crime and victimization (read Anthony Harriott’s

fear of crime and victimization article and text), no material has made a linkage between distrust

and crime and so this chapter (chapter 13) seek to bridge this gap, but the emphasis is on tourism.

This chapter was from a general perspective, but within the context that crimes are substantially

committed by youth (ages less than 25 years), we believe that a chapter must on measures used

by schools to address social deviance and their effectiveness from students’ perspectives, and

what students believe is the most effective approach that should be taken to alleviate the social

deviance in schools. The rationale for the inclusion of this chapter is simple as among the social

deviances in schools is crime, and we believe that our youth folks can provide some answers to

solution of their problem and extension that of crime in the society.




                                                 7
       Some intelligentsia may critique the logistic of this text in that there appear to no fluidity

between the chapters – because we have included a qualitative study on a speech by the one of

former Prime Minister, Right Honourable Percival James Patterson (chapter 17). But this is

crucible to the discourse of trust as one of the reasons for Jamaica’s low civic engagement is

trust (see Chapters 11 1nd 12). Jamaicans have low trust in the government. In a nationally

representative study conducted by a group of Caribbean scholars, they find that Jamaicans had

the least confidence (proxy for trust or distrust) local government council and before this

political parties, police, parliament, judiciary, large companies and governments, with the Prime

Minister – at the time of the study Mrs. Simpson-Miller was inaugurated as nation’s first female

Prime Minister – having the sixth most confidence from the Jamaicans respondents (Powell,

Bourne, & Waller, 2007, pp. 22-23).


       Despite the high degree of public confidence in the Mrs. Simpson-Miller prior to the

general election of November 13, 2007, she lost the elections because the Jamaican electors

change their confidence in her party and in her. The issue of trust in government, political

parties and political leadership is fragile because of (1) people do not trust the integrity of

politicians, and this is adjudged based on (2) their past performance (or lack of) and (3) the

inconsistencies between their speeches and their implications on the lives of the citizenry.

Hence, the final chapter is in keeping with the aforementioned issues. Its relevance is primary in

understanding distrust (or low confidence) in governments, politicians and political parties as

peoples in the different geopolitical spaces evaluate their leaders based on motives, intent and

results – further readings on this can be found in Francis Fukuyama, 1995; United Nations 2007;

Barack Obama 2006; Covey, & Merrill, 2006).




                                                 8
       Another rationale for the inclusion of the analysis of one of the speeches of former Prime

Minister, Rt. Hon. P.J. Patterson is not only its contribution that leads to an interpretation of

intent, motive, character, integrity and results, but how Jamaican view governments and the

interrelationship between this a trust (or low confidence). We are not for miniature second

indicating that the Rt. Hon. P.J. Patterson was or is corrupt, but what we are doing here is

explaining Jamaicans low confidence in government and their political leaders. In a cross-

sectional probability survey research of some 1,100 Jamaicans, a group of researchers found that

Jamaicans believe that the 5-most corrupt institutions in descending order are police, parish

council, customs, central government and public work (Waller, Bourne, Minto, & Rapley, 2007,

p. 14). In this text we will not venture into the discourse as whether perception is reality or

statistical relation between the two issues, but we are cognizant that just a debate exists. And that

it is well established that there is a strong statistical association between self-reported

measurement and objective measurement of events. Hence, we have found that there is a

negative association between corruption and political participation, and trust. And this is the

primate reason for the inclusion of the qualitative assessment of speech by one of nation’s former

Prime Minister.


       Consequently this text is a plenary research on trust in Jamaica as the tutelage of this

society is not only the responsibility of governments, but the collective efforts of all peoples

within the society. This current work is more than a guardianship of social solidarity in a nation

that cannot seem to understand how to solve crime. Thus, the material will provide an empirical

basis upon which policies must be fashioned as it [text] is an intrepid step in examining

correlates of the social ills that are causing the breakdown of the social fabric of this county.




                                                  9
        Within the difficulties of current social decay of countless developing nations in

particular Jamaica, we believe that a comprehensive study on trust will provide our people with

answers the some of the questions that were asked to which no answers have been forthcoming.

This text we hope will not only be germane to a paradigm shift in the study of socials ills in

Third World nations; but that it will provide the platform upon which a real solution of some of

symptoms that have overtaken many discourse. Trust is more than a commodity; it is premise

upon which all social system functions. It is within general framework that a research on trust

becomes pivotal to addressing some of the social ills that are provided in a society that is low

trusting. The Jamaican society like Haiti, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Zimbabwe, Nigeria,

Cambodia, Columbia, to name a few nations are experiencing an obnoxious time at this juncture

in their annals as it relates to crime, corruption, bloodshed, distrust and more distrust. From this

perspective these societies are looking for saviours, but the problem has not been identified as it

relates to trust.




                                                10
Reference


Covey, S. M.R., & Merrill, R.R. (2006).      The speed of trust. The one thing that changes
      everything. New York: Free Press.

Harriott, A., Brathwaite, F., & Wortley, S, (Eds). (2004). Crime and criminal justice in the
       Caribbean. Kingston: Arawak.

Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and post modernization: Cultural, economic and political

       Change in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jamaica Information Service, JIS. (2006). Inaugural address by the Hon. Portia Lucretia
       Simpson-Miller, MP, Prime Minister of Jamaica. Retrieved October 1, 2006 from
       http://www.jis.gov.jm/PMspeeches/html/20060331T120000-
       0500_8456_JIS_INAUGURAL_ADDRESS_BY_THE_HON_PORTIA_LUCRETIA_SI
       MPSON_MILLER_MP_PRIME_MINISTER_OF_JAMAICA.ASP.

Lewicki, R.J., & Stevenson, M.A. (1998). Trust development in negotiation: Proposed actions
      and a research agenda. Journal of Business and professional Ethics, 16(1-3):99-132.

Miller, A. H. (1974). “Political Issues and Trust in Government, 1964-1970,” American Political
        Science Review 68, 3: 951-972.

Morgan, B. (2005). Trust, education and development in Jamaica, 1950 – 2000. Unpublished
      doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University.

Obama, B. (2006). The audacity of hope. Thoughts on reclaiming the American dream. New
    York: Three Rivers Press.

Powell, L., Bourne, P., & Waller, L. (2007). Probing Jamaica’s Political Culture, vol. 1. Main
    Trends in the July-August 2006 Leadership and Governance Survey. Kingston: Centre of
    Leadership and Governance, the University of the West Indies at Mona.

Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton:
      Princeton University Press.

Transparency International. (1999 – 2007). Transparency International Annual Report. Berlin:
     Transparency International.

Uslaner, Eric M. 2005. Trust and corruption. In global corruption report, 2005 Transparency
       International. London: Transparency International.

Waller, Lloyd, Bourne, Paul, Minto, Indianna, & Rapley, John. (2007). A landscape assessment
       of political corruption in Jamaica. Kingston: CaPRI Taking Responsibility.



                                               11
                                                                                              Chapter


                                                                                                     2


Understanding Interpersonal Trust and identifying its Correlates



       Introduction

       All contemporary plantation societies or slavery colonies owe their current socio-

economic status to metropolis’ nations such as England, Spain, Portugal, and France. Those

countries during their trajectory to identify and expand their economic bases in the process have

plunged many developing societies into highly divisive societies. It is well established in

scholarships that developing nations such as those in Africa and the Caribbean have not recovery

from the legacies of slavery.      Plantation economies, in particular Haiti, Jamaica, Nigeria,

Zimbabwe, to name a few are currently faced with high levels of corruption, some degree of

anarchy, low productivity, survivability of its citizenry, and high distrust. And that those issues

are legacies of the plantation establishments. Thus in studied any of those societies’ current

social ills, we must examine their history and evaluate the role of institutional distrust and its role

on present human relationships. Trust is essentially the foundation upon which all human

relationships rely (also see, Hardy, 1990). Therefore, among the legacies of slavery and

plantation societies is distrust, which accounts for many of the social decays that currently are

manifesting in crime, uncooperation, tax evasion and avoidance, corruption, low transparency

and accountability, bureaucracy and divisiveness between peoples of different cultures and

socialization.

       George     Beckford    (1999)    in   one of     his   books    titled   ‘Persistent   Poverty:

Underdevelopment in Plantation Economies of the Third World’ provide an account of the

                                                  12
‘plundering’ past of metropolis of many nations that current are facing instable democracies,

high degree of distrust and low development, when he opines that:

       Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia comprise what is now popularly
       described as the Third World. Although vast in area and rich in resources, the Third
       World does not provide adequate levels of living for its people. Very low levels of
       income, malnutrition, disease, poor housing, sanitation and medical services, and little or
       no education are the lot of the majority of people. The task of improving the welfare of
       Third World peoples is the most important and formidable one confronting mankind
       today. (Beckford, 1999, p. xxi)

       The countries of the North Atlantic – stretching from the United States and Canada on the
       one side to the former Soviet Union on the other – have managed, on the whole, to
       achieve high level of material advancement. It is becoming increasingly clear that the
       fortunes of North Atlantic peoples are closely related to the misfortunes of Third World
       peoples, in many fundamental ways. For a long time the Third World has relied heavily
       on trade ties with the more advanced countries but, for various reasons, trade expansion
       has not proved to be a sufficiently effective stimulus to economic development in the
       Third World (Beckford 1999, xxxi).


       In George Beckford’s discussion, although he examined the issue of underdevelopment

of Third World economies with extensive brevity and understanding of the annals on what

obtains today, he failed to provide an account of the metropolis’ influence on distrust in those

societies. Whereas he identify many of the problematic of Third World economies, he

exploitation of the metropolis of those nations was such that the precept that were fashioned and

left in those economies are still present, and explain the difficulty that they face today. Hence, it

is difficult for those states to improve the welfare of its citizenry by merely building of the

structure of any modified system of the plantation economies. Using the Jamaican Constitution

since the independency from Britain in 1962, there is no fundamental change in the precept that

began the nation. This discourse is so crucible that it may extend to the entire text and this is not

the purpose therein, this means that one could do further readings on the topic in George




                                                 13
Beckford’s text (1999). Thus, the issue here is now does our current low distrust fashioned from

our past?

       In an attempt to manage the difficulties of the plantation economies or slavery, slave

owners not only instituted ‘unfair’ precepts but a part of the strategy was to have a divisive slave

population. The plantation owners would have slave report on each other as a way of being

cognizant of the slaves’ intent, motive and plans. Although was able to accomplish it primary

objective, slave began distrust each other as they were sure of the integrity and credibility of

their fellow slaves. As many slaves would have witnessed betrayed slaves being physical

punished, put to death or imprisoned because of the report of other slaves as to those slaves ‘bad’

intent or motive.

       For the plantation classes the important issue was to rule and protect their investment

(Simmonds, 2004 in Harriott, Brathwaite, & Wortley, 2004), and so they could not afford

anarchy, slave rule or runaway slave as slaves were the primary component in the production

process. This meant that slaves who saw the system as oppressive and a betrayal of their

humanity were cautious of their actions in relation to who they made aware of their plans, but

this deepens the divide between slaves and slaves, and some slaves and plantation owners. This

reality permeates the atmosphere (i.e. distrust), and slaves socialize their children to be

distrusting of the system, and of other slaves.

       Thus, it was not surprising that the uprising that emerged in the future was not only

between slaves and plantation owners but these were also between slaves and slaves as each

party could not trust the other. Such an explanation goes to the core of many of the crimes that

were committed them. One intelligentsia provides us with some work as to rationale for the

revolt. According to Simmonds,



                                                  14
       The Jamaican slave laws were elitist, ethnocentric and expedient, locally designed with
       the clear intention of establishing planter class ascendancy through a coordinated system
       of coercion and repression, paying little attention to securing consent. Whatever benefits
       accrued to any other social group was incidental benefited from legal protection primarily
       because of their status as property. With a rigorously elitist legal superstructure, the
       judicial system, by logic, was inequitable in its application, policing mechanisms were
       crude and inefficient, with social cohesion dependent on military repression (2004, p. 14)


       Within the context of Simmonds’ perspective, we must ask the question as whether there

have been any fundamental changes in to the precepts in Jamaica since those elitist and

ethnocentric establishments. Jamaicans continue to believe that the governance of the country is

in favour of the rich, and that the administration of justice still addresses the concerns of the

affluent while the poor are always disadvantaged in the process. Powell, Bourne, & Waller

(2007) asked Jamaican “would you say that [the] administration of justice in Jamaica mainly

favours the rich, or that [the] administration of justice in Jamaica benefits most citizens equally?”

and 69.4% reported that it favours the rich; and when the respondents were asked “would you

say that the country is governed for the benefit of a few powerful interests, or is it governed for

the good of everyone?” found that 68.8% indicated that it benefits ‘a few powerful interest’

groups.    Hence, within this social reality, crimes in Jamaica and country with similar

characteristics like this nation should be expected to be high as with low confidence in the

system, people should be expected to protect themselves, and to seek their own solution for

problem that face them. And so, the core of many of socio-political problem in Caribbean

societies, in particular Jamaica, is expressed through crimes (Harriott, Brathwaite, & Worley,

2004; Planning Institute of Jamaica, 2005, 1990-2005; Statistical Institute of Jamaica, 1994-

2006). Like the reality of slavery distrust breaths uncooperation, low confidence in socio-

political institutions, crime, and bureaucracy. It follows that with the high levels of crimes and

victimization in many developing nations, in particular Caribbean societies, that trust would have

                                                 15
being well examined to provide an understanding of the crime problem, in order to provide some

solutions to the issue of crime.

        Contextualizing Interpersonal Trust

        What is trust? And, what are interpersonal trusts as well as its correlates? This study will

provide answers to the aforementioned questions. There is no doubt that interpersonal distrust in

Jamaica is very high – Powell, Bourne, & Waller (2007, p. 25) provide some empirical answers

to this issue when they found that approximately 4 out of 10 people trust each other, with

confidence in two institutions being over 50% (i.e. the family and the schools as well as

universities; with others indicating less than 25% except the church, which was approximately

48%) – and that crime is as a result of this distrust (or low confidence). Interpersonal trust is not

only low in Jamaica as in Europe a study found that the average interpersonal trust was 40% (i.e.

4 out of 10 people trust each other), and this was about the same in America and Belarus (4 out

of every 10 persons – i.e. 41.9%) but generally trust in Europe is lower than that in Jamaica

(average trust in Europe is 3 out of every 10 people or 30.7%). However, there are particular

nations in Europe in which trust is even lower than that in Jamaica – such as Ukraine (3 out of

every 10 persons or 27.2%); Lithuania (3 out of every 10 persons or 29.9%); Russia 2 out every

10 persons (i.e. 23.7%); and 2 out of every 10 people in Poland (i.e. 18.9%) (see UNDP 1, ud).

        Covey & Merrill (2006) opine that the simplest way to conceptualize trust is to speak of

confidence (also see Berman, 1996, 1997; La Porte & Met lay, 1996), but other scholars have

added vulnerability, and willingness and expectation (Lewicki, Tomlinson, & Gillespie 2006;

Uslaner 2002, 2005; Morgan, 2005; Markόczy, 2003; Lewicki, & Stevenson, 1998; Fukuyama,

1999). But, how is trust defined? Trust is "the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the


1
 UNDP’s article can be found at http://undp.by/pdf/1321_eng_Chapter_5.pdf. The title of the text is ‘Building
Stronger Social Capital for Belarus.

                                                       16
actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action

important to the trustor" (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 712). Such a conceptual

perspective on trust highlights a critical tenet of the phenomenon, which is psychological state of

the trustee (receiver) based on a particular forward by a truster (giver) (Morgan, 2005; Hardin,

2002; Morris & Moberg, 1994; also see Deutsch, 1962; Rotter, 1967). Thus, trust is a subjective

assessment of people state of mind.

       Some scholars measure trust from the aforementioned psychological state of people by

way of ‘generalized trust’ perspective. In Generalized trust, the researcher would asked a single

question that states – “Generally speaking, would you say that most people are essentially good

and can be trusted, or that most people are not essentially good and cannot be trusted?”, with

responses being either ‘most people essentially good, [and] can [be] trust[ed]” or most people

[are] not essentially good, [and] cannot [be] trust[ed]’ (Powell, Bourne, & Waller, 2007, p. 109).

But this raises the question of subjective versus objective assessment of trust? And whether we

should use a subjective measure of trust to analysis such a vital social construction, given that it

affects all areas of human existence?

       Uslaner helps us to understand that validity of a subjective assessment of trust is equally

reliable and valid as if it were an objective valuation of this construct. Uslaner states:

       Overall, subjective measures matter a lot more than objectives ones. Collectively, the
       most optimistic person – who wants a fulfilling job, thinks about the future, and believes
       that she can make it regardless of luck, connections, or current economic circumstances –
       is 36 percent more likely to trust others than the most convinced pessimist. The mode
       prosperous person – with a relatively high family income, who owns his own home, has a
       savings and a pension plan but does not have to make debt payments, whose parents were
       well-off, and has neither been laid off nor worried about losing his job – is 2 percent less
       likely to trust others than people who do not fare so well economically. Clearly your
       worldview, not your resources, determines whether you will trust other people. … Only
       one objective measure of well-being achieves significance, compared to five subjective
       indicators – collectively there is no net impact of objective measures on trust (2002, p.
       109)

                                                  17
       Having provided some premise upon which we are able to generalized trust, we will not

prolong this discourse as it is well documented in literature that there is a strong statistical

relationship between subjective and objective assessment of variables (also see, Easterlin, 2003,

2001; Diener, 1984; Gaspart, 1998). As such, an assessment of trust from a self-reported

perspective is equally potent, and does provide some insight for us to understand this

phenomenon and its correlates. Fukuyama is among those who have started the discourse of

trust from a generalized perspective. And he has argued that role of trust is multidimensional,

and that it affects democracy, social capital, unit cost of production, cooperation among people

and institution, without which there is anarchy. He writes:

       It is perhaps easier to appreciate the economic value of trust if we consider what a
       world devoid of trust would look like. If we had to approach every contract with the
       assumption that our partners would try to cheat us if they could, then we would have to
       spend a considerable amount of time bulletproofing the document to make sure that
       there were no legal loopholes by which we could be taken advantage          of.   Contracts
       would be endlessly long and detailed, spelling out every possible contingency and
       defining every conceivable obligation (1995, pp. 152-153)

      Again ‘what is a world devoid of trust would look like’? Third World societies are replica

of this world – corruption, bureaucracy, low accountability and transparency, high crime,

victimization, low civic engagement, high production unit cost, cynicism, suspicion, integrity

and credibility issues, and system void a core ‘good’ exception from others or entities – and one

scholar has shown that there is a negative association between corruption and trust (Uslaner,

2005). Trust affects ‘good’ governance (Blind, 2007); and according to Blind, the association is

vice versa (2007, p. 20) such as political-legitimacy, economic-efficiency, civic engagement,

Peri K. Blind, Eric Uslaner and Transparency International has shown that corruption influences

trust. Blind argues that perceived corruption also damages trust, and this is vice versa; and that

scandal erodes legitimacy in institutions. Alesina, & La Ferrara (2000), Putnam (2001) and

                                                18
Newton (2001, 2004) have identified among them cooperation, scalability and collective action,

social intelligence, networking, and social cohesion as factors of trust.

       Using generalized trust – “Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be

trusted, or that you can’t be too careful?” (Morgan, 2005, p. 54)- Morgan did an online survey

research of some 104 respondents during the months of April and May 2005 and she finds that

sex; education (i.e. secondary education); influence of ones father; and optimism, number of

years of education influence generalized trust. Generalized trust, on the other hand, influences

sociability, agency, and civic engagement (Morgan, 2005, p. 16). Beverley Morgan’s work used

single hypothesis testing; and her model constitutes of gender, educational type, and number of

years of schooling. Other non-Caribbean scholars have established the correlation between

religiosity and church attendance and generalized interpersonal trust (Tan & Vogel, 2005; Sosis,

2005; Johansson-Stenman, Mahmud, & Martinsson, 2004). Hence, this study will examine a

number of predisposed variables and their influence on generalized interpersonal trust in

Jamaica.    Secondly, the study seeks to ascertain whether those predisposed variables are

predictor or just factors of trust.

        Method

        Sample

        In July-August 2006, the Centre of Leadership and Governance (CLG), Department of
Government, University of the West Indies at Mona, Kingston, examines ‘Jamaica’s Political
Culture’, through a sample survey. The survey uses a questionnaire of some 166 items, which
probes issues relating to the orientation of democracy, leadership and governance in Jamaica.
The survey was a stratified random sample of the fourteen parishes of Jamaica, using the
descriptive research design. The sample frame is representative of the population based on
gender and ethnicity. A total of 1,338 respondents aged 16 years and older were interviewed for
this study, with a sampling error of approximately ± 3%, at the 95% confidence level (i.e. CI).
The average age for the sample is 34 years and 11 months ± 13 yrs and 7 months. The results
                                                 19
that are presented here are based solely on Jamaicans’ opinion of their political orientation.
       Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Data were collected and stored using
the Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Dummy variables were created from
some demographic and some other variables – sex, race, religiosity, area of residence,
generalized trust, unemployed person, perceived social class and justice. Wellbeing and political
participation were computed from a number of scale questions. Descriptive statistics were done
to provide background information on the sample; tests were done for Cronbach alpha to
examine the reliability of the construct – i.e. wellbeing and political participation. Then, logistic
regression was used to build a model. A goodness of fit statistics was done for on the model

Measure

Age, ‘A’. Age is a continuous variable, which is recorded in years.

Religiosity, ‘R’. The frequency with which people attend religious services, which does not
include attending functions such as (1) graduations, (2) weddings, (3) christenings, (4) funerals.
This variable begins with 0 being none at all to 7, being at least once per week.

Sex, ‘X’. This variable is being male or female. It is a binary measure, where 1=male and
0=female.

Interpersonal Trust, ‘T’. This is people’s perception of their ‘trust’ in other people, and for
government. It will be a dummy variable, where 1=Yes, and 0=Otherwise. The question from
which this is measured reads - Generally speaking, would you say that most people are
essentially good and can be trusted, or that most people are not essentially good and cannot be
trusted?”, with responses being either ‘most people essentially good, [and] can [be] trust[ed]” or
most people [are] not essentially good, [and] cannot [be] trust[ed]’ (Powell, Bourne, & Waller,
2007, p. 109).

Subjective Psychosocial Wellbeing Index, ‘SPWB’. SPWB = ΣQ i / Σf; where Q i is the selected
value from each ladder of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need, and ‘f’ being the frequency of the event.
The Cronbach α=0.762 for the 5-item variables, which are used to constitute this Index. Thus,
subjective psychosocial index is interpreted as from 0 to 1.9 represents very low SPWB; 2.0 to
3.9 is low; 4.0 to 6.9 is moderate, 7.0 to 8.9 is high, and 9.0 to 10 is very high SPWB.

Confidence in sociopolitical institutions, CFI. This is the summation of 22 likert scale questions,
with each question on a scale of (4) a lot of confidence, (3) some confidence, (2) a little
confidence, to (1) no confidence. The heading that precedes the question reads: I am going to
read to you a list of major groups and institutions in our society. For each, tell me how much
CONFIDENCE you have in that group or institution. (See Appendix). Confidence index =

                                                 20
summation of 22 items, with each question being weighted equally; and 0≤confidence index≤88,
with a Cronbach α for the 22-item scale being 0.896. The higher the scores, the more people
have confidence in sociopolitical institutions within the society. Thus, the confidence index is
interpreted as from 0 to 34 represents very little confidence; 35 to 61 is low confidence; 62 to 78
is moderate confidence and 79 to 88 is most confidence.



         Results

         Of a sampled population of 1,338 respondents, approximately 63% (62.7%, n=795)
report that they do not trust other people compared to 37% (n=472). The sample had marginally
more females (55.7%, n=723) than males (44.3%, n=574). Continuing, most of the respondents
are Blacks include those who classified themselves as Brown (90.0%, n=1,201), with 8.0%
(n=106) Caucasians, and 20% (n=26) of other ethnicities. Furthermore, 59% of the respondents
report that they are within the lower class, approximately 37% (36.6%, n=476) middle class
compared to 4.4% (n=57) who say upper class. Another demographic characteristic was the
educational level of the respondents, 1.5% (n=20) report ‘no formal’ education, 3.1% (n=40) say
primary/preparatory education, 69% (n=892) remark secondary/high, and 26.2% (n339) indicate
post-secondary level education. (See Table 1.1)




                                     (Insert Table 1.1, here)




         A finding of utmost importance is the ‘subjective psychological wellbeing’ (i.e. SPWB)
of the respondents. The mean SPWB for the sampled respondents was 6.9 (± 1.7), range: 0 to 10
- out of 10 - with the mode being 7.8. Thus, this finding reveals that on an average the self-
reported psychologic wellbeing of Jamaicans is high. However, confidence in institutions in
Jamaica, based on the sampled responses, is low (i.e. 56.7±11.23, Range: 3- 87). Concurrently,
interpersonal trust in Jamaica is very low as 37.3% of Jamaicans say that they trust other persons.
(See Table 1.1). This is translated to be approximately 4 out of every 100 Jamaicans trust each
other.



                                                  21
        On an average the subjective psychosocial wellbeing of the sampled population (6.9 ±

1.7) is more than that for people who classify themselves as being within the working class (i.e.

6.6 ± 1.7). On the other hand, the subjective psychosocial wellbeing for the middle class and the

upper class is more than the national average – that is, (i.e. 7.3 ± 1.6) and (i.e. 7.2 ± 2.0)

respectively. Concurrently, the subjective psychosocial wellbeing is the greatest for middle

class. Although the difference between middle and upper class is 0.1, there is a statistical

difference between the two groups [i.e. ρ value = 0.001]. (See Table 1.2).


                                      (Insert Table 1.2, here)


                                          Main Findings

In this section of the paper, we describe the results of the multivariate analysis in attempting to
test the hypothesis stated in Eqn. (1). The logistic regression was conducted on full sample,
which consisted of all the respondents who answered the questions (i.e. completed data).



        Hypothesis to be tested:



        T=ƒ (A, R, X, SPWB, CFI)..……………………………………….……………….. (1)



        The analysis of this research was to test the hypothesis in Eqn (1), which state that
interpersonal trust is a function of age, religiosity, sex and self-reported psychological wellbeing
of the respondents, and this was carried out by logistic regression.

        Where T represents the dependent variable, which refers to Jamaicans interpersonal
trust, A stands for the age of the respondents in years, R means religiosity, X being the sexes and
SPWB denotes the subjective psychological wellbeing index, and CFI means ones confidence in
sociopolitical institutions.



                                                 22
       Analysis of Multi Regression Model



       From Table 2, of the five preselected variables that we test from the data, only three
factors are predictors of interpersonal trust. Firstly, subjective psychologic wellbeing is directly
related to interpersonal trust (b=0.129, ρ < 0.05, 0.001).         This factor is the second most
significant predictor of interpersonal trust (Wald statistic, 12.346), with confidence in institutions
being the most significant (Wald statistic, 12.403) followed by religiosity (Wald statistic, 6.095).
We found a positive relationship between interpersonal trust and confidence in institutions
(b=0.469, ρ < 0.05, 0.001). An inverse relationship was found between interpersonal trust and
religiosity (b=-0.074). It means that less people attend church, the less they will high degree of
interpersonal trust. Thus, the final model that we proposed as follows:




T=ƒ (R, SPWB, CFI)..………………………………………………..…………………….. (4)

                                        (Insert Table 2, here)

       However, the following variables were not found to be statistically significant – age
(b=0.001, ρ > 0.05, 0.893), sex (b=0.088, ρ >0.05, 0.494).           This implies that there is no
difference between the sexes and their interpersonal trust or age for that matter. We have placed
the goodness of fit of the model in Appendix I. In addition, we have found that the 0.043 or 4.3
percentage (Nagelkerke R square, 0.043) of the variation in interpersonal trust can be explained
by three factors. Continuing, the goodness of fit of the model is discussed in Appendix I. As
primarily, the model is a good fit for the data.

       Having established the factors for the interpersonal trust model [i.e. Eqn. (4)], we will
now examine these conditions further. We found that an individual who is more confident in
sociopolitical institution is 1.6 times more likely to trust another person than some who is less
confident in those institutions. Concurrently, a person who has a higher subjective psychosocial
wellbeing is 1.1 times more likely to trust other people compared to an individual with a lower
subjective psychosocial wellbeing. Conversely, we found that an individual who attends church
more (excluding special occasions such as funerals, weddings, christening, graduation, etc)

                                                   23
frequently is 0.9 times less likely to trust another person compared to his/her counterparts who
attend less frequently. (See Table 2).

     We further examined of the predisposed variables, which are in the tested hypothesis, reveal
more than final factors that are in the predictive model in equation [4]. Based on the correlation
matrix in Table 3, there are associations between subjective psychosocial wellbeing and
religiosity, confidence in sociopolitical institutions, and sex. We found that weak positive
association between subjective psychosocial wellbeing and religiosity (10.8%), and weak
negative relationship between subjective wellbeing and confidence in sociopolitical institutions
(3.2%). Concurrently, there is a negative relationship between subjective psychosocial wellbeing
and sex of residents (5.9%). This means that females’ subjective psychosocial wellbeing is
greater than that of their male counterparts. With respect to religiosity, we found that negative
relationship between religiosity and sex (21.9%) and a positive one between religiosity and age
(12.2%). Interpreting these results mean that females have a higher religiosity compared to their
male counterparts, and that the older people get the more they attend church outside of special
occasions, with there being a minimal association between religiosity and confidence (i.e. 0.2%).
Furthermore, we found that weak association between confidence in sociopolitical institution and
age of respondents (9.5%), and 1.2% negative relationship between confidence and sex. The
latter means that females are less confident in sociopolitical institutions compared to females.
(See Table 3)

                                         (Insert Table 3, here)

       Having established the determinants of generalized interpersonal trust, the next purpose
of the study was to examine whether those factors extend as far as to predictors of trust. Hence,
we setout to use a probability function –

Ln (pi/1-pi) =Z ..…………………………………………………………………………...… (2)



       where z is the linear combination , and pi is the probability of trust occurring in model
equation [1]; β i parameters estimates of confidence in social and political institutions, religiosity,
psychosocial wellbeing, and confidence in sociopolitical institutions in Jamaica.



                                                  24
Z= a + b 1 A + b 2 R + b 3 X + b 4 SPWB + b 5 CFI……………………………………………..… (3)



Ln (pi/1-pi) = β 0 + β 1 Psychosocial wellbeing + β 2 Religiosity +β 3 Confidence
………………[2.0]



       Ln {pi/1-pi} = -2.462 + 0.129SPWB – 0.074R + 0.469CFI .……..…………………..[2.1]



Case 1: We will examine whether or not the model identified in equation [2.1] is a predictive one
for people with low religiosity, psychosocial wellbeing and very little confidence in
sociopolitical institutions. Let us assume that a minimal value for wellbeing (i.e. SPWB = 1) and
confidence (CFI=34) and using 1 to denote base religiosity.



Ln {pi/1-pi} = -2.462 + 0.129 – 0.074 + 0.469*(34)………………………………………[2.2]



       Ln {pi/1-pi} = 0.999



       Therefore, pi = 0.999 which means that we can predict the interpersonal trust of someone
with very little confidence in sociopolitical institution, minimal psychosocial wellbeing or an
individual who attends church at most once per year outside of special occasions.




       Case 2: We will examine whether or not the model identified in equation [2.1] is a
predictive one for someone who indicated moderate – religiosity, confidence and psychosocial
wellbeing. Let us assume that a minimal value for wellbeing (i.e. SPWB = 5) and confidence
(CFI=62) and using 3 to denote base religiosity.



Ln {pi/1-pi} = -2.462 + 0.129* (5) – 0.074 * (4) + 0.469 * (62) …………………………[2.3]



                                                 25
       Ln {pi/1-pi} = 1



       Therefore, pi = 1 which means that we can predict the interpersonal trust of someone
with moderate confidence in sociopolitical institution and psychosocial wellbeing or an
individual who attends church at least once per month.

       Conclusion

       The literature shows that generalized interpersonal trust in Jamaica is very low – 4 out of

10 people trust each other, but this is equally so in Europe, America and other developed nations.

The importance of this paper is not merely embedded in the determinants of trust – religiosity,

wellbeing and confidence in sociopolitical institutions but the fact that interpersonal trust affects

sociability, civic engagement, cooperation and stability of a democracy. The findings of this

survey research has concurred with the literature that religiosity influences generalized

interpersonal trust. We further established that people who attend church more often are less

trusting of other persons. Of the 3-determinant of generalized interpersonal trust, religiosity

contributes the least – Wald statistics = 6.095 compared to confidence in sociopolitical

institutions (Wald statistics = 12.403) and wellbeing (i.e. Wald statistics = 12.346). This may be

surprising to some of the readers but this should not come as startling as crucible aspect to

Christendom is distrust, except in God. This will be further examined from an empirical

perspective in Chapter 9.        In addition to aforementioned justification for generalized

interpersonal distrust in Jamaica, another rationale is embedded in slavery and/or plantation

establishment.


       Not only is confidence in socio-political institutions statistical related to trust – and this

concurs with the literature – but that it is the most influential factor in predicting interpersonal

trust. Hence, people sociability which is an expression of the trust is affected by the people’s


                                                 26
perception of confidence in those institutions. We have found that interpersonal trust is likely to

increase by approximately 2 times if people’s confidence in organizations increases. It follows

that with the high degree interpersonal distrust in Jamaica (Powell, Bourne, & Waller, 2007) and

contribution of the nation’s plantation past coupled with the high levels of corruption, the

Jamaican public will be increasingly less likely to participate in civic engagements – these

include voluntarism, paying of taxes, cooperation with state institutions, and political

participation (see Chapters 10 and 13 for more empirical evidence on this issue).


       Francis Fukuyama, Eric Uslaner, United Nations and Transparency International have

provided extensive scholarship on the influence of trust on economic growth.            This study

concludes that wellbeing positively affect interpersonal trust, and an increase in wellbeing means

that trust will increased by at least one unit. Embodied in this finding is the implicit connection

between intrinsic motivation and trust; and the opposite is equally trust for confidence in

institutions – extrinsic motivation. The study reveals that the poor have the least wellbeing in the

society, with the middle class having the most, followed by the affluent class. This speaks to the

issue of education being a positive influence on trust (Morgan, 2005); and therefore, explains a

part of the crime problem. The poor still believes that the system is designed to favour the rich

(see Powell, Bourne, & Waller, 2007; Simmonds, 2004), and so their low confidence in the

sociopolitical institutions coupled with their low standard of living (proxy by wellbeing) explain

their ‘vulgarity’, and cruelty to live and property of other people. They believe that the structure

is not designed to provide equity, fairness or justice and an improvement in wellbeing; and so,

their action can be likened to slavery, revolt and physical confrontations. Chapter 3 highlights

and examines predisposed factors that influence confidence in socio-political institutions, and

this is done from a research empirical perspective as this plays an important role in distrust (or


                                                27
trust). People are continuously evaluating the results of sociopolitical institutions and this is

what they use to assess intent, motive, credibility and integrity. Thus, Chapter 14 is included

here as it can be used to analyze motives and intent. Furthermore, we now know – in Jamaica –

that confidence in sociopolitical organizations affect generalized interpersonal trust and so does

wellbeing, but ‘does trust affect wellbeing’, this is examined in Chapter 6.




                                                28
Appendix I:


Testing for Goodness of fit and the adequacy of the model
Interpersonal Trust Model

Classification Table for Interpersonal Trust

                                                     Predicted

                                                    Dummy Trust
                                                     (1=Trust)         Percentage
 Observed                                           No      Yes         Correct
                 Trust           No
                                                     606          46         93.6
                 (1=Trust)
                                Yes                  379          44         10.4
                 Overall Percentage                                          62.7


In order to evaluate whether or not the model fits the data, “The Classification of Table” was
used to compare the predicted to the observed outcomes. The Table reveals that four hundred
and twenty-five respondents were incorrectly classified: 379 of these who have interpersonal
trust and 46 who do not. Overall, 62.7% of the 1,075 respondents were correctly classified:
10.4% of those with ‘trust’ and 93.6% of those who had no interpersonal trust.




                                               29
                                            Appendix II
Appendix II
Confidence in sociopolitical institutions
I am going to read to you a list of major groups and institutions in our society. For each, tell me
how much CONFIDENCE you have in that group or institution. For each, do you have …..?
    (1) NO CONFIDENCE
    (2) A LITTLE CONFIDENCE
    (3) SOME CONFIDENCE
    (4) A LOT OF CONFIDENCE

       Q121. “Police” ……………
       Q12 2 .Would you say you have a lot, some a little or no confidence in “trade union”
       Q123.in “political in parties”…
       Q124.in “churches”
       Q125.”Large companies corporation”
       Q126.”Government”
       Q127.school”
       Q128.”Families”
       Q129.”Universities”
       Q130.”Private sector”
       Q131.”Bank”
       Q132.”Prime minister”
       Q133.”Judiciary Courts”
       Q134.”Armed forces”
       Q135.”Parliament”
       Q136.”Governor General
       Q137.”Local government council”
       Q138.”News paper”
       Q139”television’
       Q140.radio”
       Q141.the people national party - PNP”
       Q142.”The Jamaica labour party - JLP

       Source: Taken from questionnaire of Powell, Bourne, & Waller (2007, pp. 122-124).




                                                 30
Table 1.1: Results: Demographic characteristics

      Variables                                        Percentage (Count)

Interpersonal Trust
       Yes                                                    37.3 (n=472)
       No                                                     62.7 (n=795)

Gender
      Male                                                    44.3 (574)
      Female                                                  55.7 (723)

Ethnicity:
White                                                         8.0 (106)
Black and Brown                                               90.0 (1,201)
Other                                                         2.0 (26)

Subjective Social Class
Lower                                                         59.0 (766)
Middle                                                        36.6 (476)
Upper                                                          4.4 (57)

Respondents’ Educational Level
No Formal                                                     1.5 (20)
Primary/Preparatory                                           3.1 (40)
Secondary                                                     69.0 (892)
Tertiary                                                      26.2 (339)

Subjective Psychological Wellbeing Index                      6.9 ± 1.7
                                                  Mode = 7.8, max = 10

Confidence Index                                              56.5 ± 11.23
                                                  Mode = 57, max = 88




                                           31
Table 1.2: Descriptive Statistics for Subjective Psychosocial wellbeing and subjective social
                                            class



Details                     Mean          standard deviation          95 % CI

                                                                  Lower         Upper


Working class               6.6           1.7                   6.4             6.7

Middle class                7.3           1.6                   7.1             7.4

Upper class                 7.2           2.0                   6.7             7.7

Total                       6.9           1.7                   6.8             6.9


ρ value = 0.001




                                             32
          Table 2: Logistic Regression - Determinants of Interpersonal Trust, n=1075


                                         B          S.E.           Wald         df          Sig.        Exp(B)



 Step 1(a)      SPWBI                    .129            .037      12.346              1         .000     1.138

                Religiosity              -.074           .030         6.095            1         .014      .929

                Confidence               .469            .133      12.403              1         .000     1.598

                Sex                      .088            .129           .468           1         .494     1.092

                Age                      .001            .005           .018           1         .893     1.001

                Constant             -2.462              .473      27.087              1         .000      .085

Note: The Wald statistic is used to determine the predictors that contributed significantly to the
model and how well the model fits the data ‘The Classification Table’ (See Appendix ).




Table 3: Correlation Matrix of five items of interpersonal trust


                                                          Religiosi      Confidence
                              Constant       SWB             ty            Index           Sex          Age

 Step 1         Constant         1.000
                SWB              -.534           1.000
                Religiosity      -.295            .108          1.000
                Confidenc
                e                -.701           -.032           .002          1.000
                Index
                Sex              -.007           -.059          -.219          -.012       1.000
                Age              -.293            .004           .122          -.095       -.078        1.000




                                                     33
Reference

Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2000). The determinants of trust. NBER Working Paper, 7621.

Arrow, K. (1972). Gifts and Exchanges. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1: 343-362.

Beckford, G. (1999). Persistent Poverty: Underdevelopment in Plantation Economies of the
      Third World, 2nd ed. Kingston: The University of the West Indies Press.
Berman, E. M. (1996, June). Does trust matter? A survey of local government. Paper presented
      at the American Society for Public Administration, Atlanta, GA.
Berman, E. M. (1997). Dealing with cynical citizens. Public Administration Review, 57,
      105-112.

Bhattacharya, R., Devinney, T. M. & Pillutla, M. (1998). A Formal Model of Trust Based on
       Outcomes Academy of Management Review, Volume 23, No. 3, pp 459 – 472.
Blind, P. K. (2007, June). Building trust in government in the twenty-first century: Review of
       literature and emerging issues. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Seventh
       Global Forum on Reinventing government Building trust in government, Vienna, Austria.

Cook, K, (Editor). (2001). Trust in Society. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Coleman, J.C. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Coleman, J. C. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
      Sociology 94: S95-S120.

Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In M. R. Jones (Ed.),
      Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 275-319). Lincoln, NE: University of
      Nebraska Press.

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective Well-Being: The Science of Happiness and a Proposal for a
   National      Index.            American    Psychological      Association,   55:34-43.
   http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/conferences/socialcapital/Happiness%20Readings/Diener_200
   0.pdf (accessed April 6, 2006).

Diener, Edward. 1984. Subjective wellbeing. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 3:542-575.

Easterlin, R, A. 2003. Building a better theory of well-being. Prepared for presentation at the
    Conference “Paradoxes of Happiness in Economics”, University of Milano-Bicocca, March
    21-23, 2003. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~easterl/papers/BetterTheory.pdf (accessed August 26,
    2006).

Fukuyama, F. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York, NY:
       Free Press, 1995.
Gaspart, F. (1998). Objective measures of well-being and the cooperation production problem.
   Social Choice and Welfare, 15, no.1:95-112. Academic Search Premier, EbscoHost

                                               34
   (accessed 8 February 2006).

Handy,

Hardin, R. (2004). Distrust. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and Trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Harriott, A., Brathwaite, F., & Wortley, S. (2004). Crime and Criminal Justice in the Caribbean.
       Kingston: Arawak Publishers.


Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage.

Johansson-Stenman, O., Mahmud, M., & Martinsson, P. (2004). Trust and Religion:
       Experimental evidence from Bangladesh. Department of Economics, Göteborg
       University, working paper no. 167.

Knack, S. and P. Keefer (1997) "Does Social Capital Have an Economy Payoff? A Cross-
       Country Investigation," Quarterly Journal of Economics 112: 1251-1288.

La Porte, T. R., & Metlay, D. S. (1996). Hazard and institutional trustworthiness: Facing
       a deficit of trust. Public Administration Review, 56, 341- 347.

Lewicki, R.J., & Stevenson, M.A. (1998). Trust development in negotiation: Proposed actions
      and a research agenda. Journal of Business and professional Ethics, 16(1-3):99-132.

Lewicki, R.J., Tomlinson, E.C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust
      development: Theoretical Approaches, Empirical Evidence, and Future Directions.
      Journal of Management 32: 991-1022.

Lewicki, R.J. & Wiethoff, C. (2000). Trust, Trust Development, and Trust Repair. In. M.
      Deutsch & P.T. Coleman (Eds.), the handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice
      (p. 86-107). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lingis, A. (2004). Trust. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Loury, G. (1977). A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences. In Women, Minorities and
       Employment Discrimination, P. Wallace and A. LeMund eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington
       Books.

Markόczy, L. (2003). Trust but verify: Distinguishing distrust from vigilance. (Accessed April
      23, 2008 from http://www.goldmark.org/livia/papers/socint/socint.pdf.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, j.h., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An Integrative Model of
       Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review, 20: 709-734.


                                               35
Morgan, B. (2005). Trust, education and development in Jamaica, 1950 – 2000. Unpublished
      doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University.

Morris, J.H., & Moberg, D.J. (1994). Work organizations as contexts for trust and betrayal. In
       T.R. Sarbin, R.M. Carney, & C. Eoyang         (Eds.), Citizen Espionage: Studies in trust
       and betrayal (pp. 163–187). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood
       Publishing Group.
Newton, K. (2001). Trust, Social Capital, Civil Society, and Democracy. International Political
       Science Review, 22: 201–214.
Newton, K. (2004), ‘Social trust: individual and cross-national approaches’, Portuguese Journal
       of Social Science 3: 15–35.
Planning Institute of Jamaica. (2005). Jamaica Human Development Report, 2005. Kingston,
    Jamaica: Planning Institute of Jamaica.

___________. (1990-2005). Economic and Social Survey Jamaica, 2005. Kingston, Jamaica:
   Planning Institute of Jamaica.

Putnam, R. (2001), Social Capital: Measurement and Consequences, in The Contribution of
      Human and Social Capital to Sustained Economic Growth and Well-Being, International
      Symposium Report edited by the OECD and HRDC.

Putnam, R. (1995). The Case of the Missing Social Capital. mimeographed.

Putnam, R. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton:
      Princeton University Press

Rotter, J. B. (1980a). Trust and gullibility. Psychology Today, 14, 35-42.

Rotter, J. B. (1980b). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist,
        35, 1-7.

Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of
   Personality, 35, 651-665.

Simmonds, L.E. (2004). The problem of crime in an Urban Slave society: Kingston in the early
        nineteenth century, In Harriott, A., Brathwaite, F., & Wortley, S. (2004). Crime and
        Criminal Justice in the Caribbean. Kingston: Arawak Publishers.
Sosis, R. (2005). Does religion promote trust? The role of signaling, reputation, and
        punishment. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 1:1-30.

Statistical Institute of Jamaica, STATIN. (1972 – 2006). Demographic Statistics, various years.
    Kingston: STATIN.

Tan, J.H.W., & Vogel. C. (2005). Religion and Trust: An experimental Study. Department of
       Business Administration and Economics, European University Viandrina Frankfurt
       (Oder), Discussion Paper No. 240.

                                                 36
Uslaner, E. M. (2005). Trust and corruption. In global corruption report, 2005 Transparency
       International. London: Transparency International.

Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The Moral Foundations of Trust, New York, NY: Cambridge University
       Press.
Waller, Lloyd G. 2006. “ICTs for Whose Development? A critical analysis of the discourses
       surrounding an ICT for Development Initiative for a group of micro enterprise
       entrepreneurs operating in the Jamaican tourism industry: Towards the development of
       methodologies and analytical tools for understanding and explaining the ICT for
       Development Phenomenon.” PhD diss., University of Waikota, 2006.




                                              37
38
                                                                                           Chapter

                                                                                                 3

                      PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN ORGANIZATIONS




       Introduction: Contextual Background


       People’s behaviour is essentially influenced by their perception of what they believe
       reality is, not by reality itself. Despite the many anti-corruption measures, which have
       been implemented over the years, generally speaking, the critical findings of this CaPRI
       Taking Responsibility Survey revealed that there exists a broad consensus among many
       Jamaicans that corruption is still prevalent and persistent in all government institutions.
       (Waller, Bourne, Minto, & Rapley, 2007, p. 25)


       [Corruption] violates the public trust [i.e. confidence] and corrodes social capital (World
       Bank, 1997, pp. 102-104)


       Traditionally, there is a perception that corruption was widespread and rampant in

Jamaica, and scholars have found that this has remained the same in 2007 (Boxill et al. 2007;

Waller, Bourne, Minto, & Rapley, 2007). In Waller et al monograph (2007) titled ‘A landscape

assessment of political corruption in Jamaica’, using sample survey research of some 1,140

Jamaica by way of probability sampling technique, find that 85% of the respondents report that it

was easy to corrupt public officials. Based on current public perception, Jamaicans have a low

level of trust in socio-political institutions (in particular government, police, customs) (Powell,

Bourne, & Waller, 2007, pp. 22-27 – trust in government 8%; trust in police 46.7%; political

parties 30.3%; local government 40.3%) and that this is due to perception of corruption, past

performance of organizations, unmet expectations, injustices and inequitable distribution of

economic resources and the lack of transparency within the global context of increased


                                                39
accountability, credibility and transparency. The issues of unaccountability and low transparency

are characteristics that led to violation of public trust (Uslaner, 2005), and that this breeds

corruption, which erodes the public’s confidence in socio-political institutions as well as the

depletion of social capital. Uslaner argues that there is a strong reciprocal relation between

corruption and trust. He added that countries with high levels of corruption have a low degree of

trust and the opposite is true (Uslaner, 2005, pp. 262-264), and further offered that this affects

gross domestic product (economic growth). In examining distrust, Uslaner finds that this is

statistically association with tax evasion, and bureaucracy. Tax evasion is a clear case of

corruption, and dishonesty; but how critical is it in a society?


       A low social capital country is not only likely to have small, weak, and inefficient
       companies; it will also suffer from pervasive corruption of its public officials and
       ineffective public administration (Francis Fukuyama, 1995, p.358)




       In March 2006, in her inaugural address [to the nation], the Most Honourable Portia
       Lucretia Simpson-Miller, Jamaica’s first female Prime Minister, made the following oath
       [that] “I want to pledge to the Jamaican people to work tirelessly to eradicate corruption
       and extortion. I am committed to their eradication” (Jamaica Information Service, 2003,
       p. 1 in Waller et al. 2007, p.1)




       The issue of corruption is no longer a perception, it is a reality; and this was admitted by

the former Prime Minister of Jamaica in her inaugural address to the nation. Recently Jamaica

has seen an unprecedented number of arrests of police officers for corruption, and a number of

key public officials have been defamed due to - (1) falsification of academic qualifications

(“Dr.” Omer Thomas), (2) misuse of public funds (former Junior Minister in the Ministry of

Energy – Kern Spencer; JAG Smith), (3) alleged ‘wife beatings’, and (4) confession of the

falsification of statement (Detective police constable, Corey Lyn Sue) – and these have further

                                                 40
reduce the public’s trust in particular sociopolitical institutions as well as they are increased

interpersonal distrust (or confidence). Those issues are not specialized to the geopolitical space

of the Jamaica as they extend to the Caribbean, United States, Europe, Asia, Africa and the

Oceania. Jamaica, Haiti, Iraq, Grenada, Dominica, and Guyana to name of few nations have

continuously had to interface with crime and violence, and high distrust in sociopolitical

organizations. Anthony Harriott, Christopher Charles, Don Robotham, Dillon Alleyne and Ian

Boxill, Mark Figueroa and Amand Sives, Farley Brathwaite, and Scot Wortley have all

contributed various scholarships on crime, criminal justice (or injustice), and victimization from

a Caribbean perspective (Boxill et al. 2007), but dearth of literature exists on organization trust

despite the seemingly correlation between crime and different typologies of distrust. Hence, this

study bridges the gap by examining organization trust (confidence), using sample survey

research. The sample was a stratified random sample of some 1,338 Jamaicans, which was a

nationally representative cross-sectional research. The aim of this study is two-fold. Firstly, to

build an organizational trust model for socio-political institutions in Jamaica (using confidence in

22-socio-political institutions in the society) as well as to examine the top five and the lower five

institutions based on particular demographic characteristics. Secondly, to ascertain what are

some of the factors of organizational trust along with explanatory power of the final institutional

trust model.


       Conceptual Framework

       Perception is sometimes different from reality, and the truth is difficult to establish when

there is the absence of knowledge, information and the cosmology of what is hidden from

people, which means that the yardstick for interpreting what we see is skewed because the

premise upon which knowledge is derived is deceptive and fallacious. But how do the perception


                                                 41
of corruption, dishonesty, intent, capability, past performance and motives influence trust in an

organization? And, how does trust influence organization productivity, profitability and success?


       Edward Diener began the discussion that subjective assessment of events is still a ‘good’

measurement as an objective assessment. Although Edward Diener’s monologues have been

specialized to wellbeing, he showed that there is a strong relation between subjective assessment

of wellbeing and objective assessment of wellbeing. Using sample survey research observational

data Diener (1984; 2000) established a clear linkage between subjective and objective wellbeing.

Other scholars have concurred with Diener (such as Diener, & Suh, 1997); and even some

economists have now ventured into the discourse. Stutzer and Frey (2003), who are economists,

studied wellbeing from the perspective of happiness (subjective assessment), which Edward

Diener has been arguing for years that happiness (subjective assessment) of wellbeing is a better

judge of quality of life compared to income, economic resources or per capita income. Another

economist (Sen, 1982; 1998) argued that the use of Gross Domestic product per capita

(economic resources) to evaluate wellbeing is focusing on the end and not the means. The

author cites that using the means approach is multidimensional as it incorporates both economic

as well as non-economic resources in the assessment of wellbeing.


       Happiness, according to Easterlin (2003) is associated with wellbeing, and so does ill-

being (for example, depression, anxiety, and dissatisfaction). Easterlin (2003) argued that

material resources have the capacity to improve one’s choices, comfort level, state of happiness

and leisure, which mitigates against static wellbeing.     Within the context that developing

countries and developed countries had at some point accepted the economic theory that

economic wellbeing should be measured by per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – (total

money value of goods and services produced within an economy over a stated period per

                                               42
person). Amartya Sen, who is an economist, writes that plethora of literature exist that show that

life expectancy is positively related to Gross National Product (GNP) per capita (Anand, and

Ravallion, 1993; Sen, 1998). Such a perspective implies that mortality is lower whenever

economic boom exists within the society and that this is believed to have the potential to increase

development, and by extension standard of living.

        Sen, however, was quick to offer a rebuttal that data analyzed have shown that some

countries (i.e. Sri Lanka, China and Costa Rica) have had reduced mortality without a

corresponding increase in economic growth (Sen, 1998), and that this was attained through other

non-income factors such as education, nutrition immunization, expenditure on public health and

poverty removal. The latter factors, undoubtedly, require income resources and so this is clear

that income is unavoidable a critical component in welfare and wellbeing. It is believed by some

scholars that economic growth and/or development is a measure of welfare (see Becker,

Philipson and Soares, 2004).

       People's moods and emotions reflect on-line reactions to events happening to them. Each
       individual also makes broader judgments about his or her life as a whole, as well as about
       domains such as marriage and work. Thus, there are a number of separable components
       of SWB [subjective well-being]: life satisfaction (global judgments of one's life),
       satisfaction with important domains (e.g., work satisfaction), positive affect
       (experiencing many pleasant emotions and moods), and low levels of negative affect
       (experiencing few unpleasant emotions and moods). In the early research on SWB,
       researchers studying the facets of happiness usually relied on only a single self-report
       item to measure each construct (Diener, 2000, 34).

       The discourse on perception in the measurement of wellbeing is current and real as

human wanting oxygen for survival. Using the works of Sen, Diener, Easterlin, Diener and Suh

and others, the debate is continuous and will continue in the further as there is no panacea for

this disagreement nor is there a simple consensus. We would like to note here that the discussion

of objective and subjective goes beyond wellbeing as there are some critical issues that formulate

                                                43
the crux of the matter in this reasoning. In a reading titled ‘Objective measures of wellbeing and

the cooperation production problem’, Gaspart (1998) provided arguments that support the

rationale behind the objectification. His premise for objective quality of life is embedded within

the difficulty as it relates to consistency of measurement when subjectivity is the construct of

operationalization.


       This approach takes precedence because an objective measurement of concept is of

exactness as non-objectification; therefore, the former receives priority over any subjective

preferences. He claimed that for wellbeing to be comparable across individuals, population and

communities, there is a need for empiricism. Ringen (1995) in a paper titled ‘Wellbeing,

measurement, and Preferences’ argued that non-welfarist approaches to measuring wellbeing are

possible despite its subjectivity. The direct approach for wellbeing computation through the

utility function according to Ringen is not a better quantification as against the indirect method

(i.e. using social indicators). The stance taken was purely from the vantage point that utility is a

function, ‘not of goods and preferences’, but of products and ‘taste’. The constitution of

wellbeing is based on choices. Choices are a function of individual assets and options. With this

premise, Ringen forwarded arguments, which show that people’s choices are sometimes

‘irrational’, which is the make for the departure from empiricism.


       The foundation has already been established that subjective (i.e. perception) in the

assessment of issues, yields the same degree of realism as empiricism (or the objectification of

events). The issues that we forwarded earlier go beyond wellbeing as it relates to trust. Using the

traditional (. classical school of economists’ perspective), events must be investigated and

thereby interpreted from a quantitative perspective, which is empiricism. This discourse

commenced as prior to the 20th century, when Max Weber purported that social phenomena

                                                44
could be studied from a subjective (qualitative) perspective without scientificness. Following

Weber’s work, research is now done using quantitative techniques, qualitative methodologies,

and mixed methodologies Weber’s perspective with that of Thomas Kuhn (1996) have laid the

premise for that Social Science (arguable a soft science) can be studied with the same degree of

scientific rigours as the Natural (or hard) Sciences. It follows that trust can be studied from a

subjective perspective, and that this does not reduce the validity or reliability of the results.


          Francis Fukuyama (1995) outlines in his text “Trust” that trust social capita (also see

Boxill et al., 2007), development, productivity, profitability, cooperation and democracy (see for

example Blind, 2007) as well as civil and harmonious relationship, which are need for the

effective function of modern societies. Many scholarships have concurred with Fukuyama that

trust is dependent on confidence, cooperation, and a particular expectation (see for example,

Deutsch, 1958, 1962; Gambetta, 1988) as well as conflict resolution (Deutsch, 1973; Lewicki, &

Stevenson, 1998). Throughout Fukuyama’s work, he did not distinguish between the different

typologies of trust, but it was obvious from that text published in 1995 that trust is interpersonal,

organizational, governmental, and that the crux of trust is confidence in an event, object or

person.


          Like Francis Fukuyama, Blind (2007) believes that democracy requires cooperation,

which is the crux of the matter therein. Both scholars argue that without cooperation in a society

it disintegrates into anarchy. Blind (2007:3) cannot be aptly summarized and produce the same

meaning, as he does so well in this regard and so we use his own words to emphasize the

crucible ingredient in a society, when he says that “Trust, in this regard, emerges as one of the

most important ingredients upon which the legitimacy and sustainability of political systems are

built”. Even though it is sometimes over by some of us in our daily functioning in society, we

                                                  45
continuously, having to rely on others, (in addition to some degree of cooperation is

present)allow for the building of all types of relations. Using sample survey research, Almond, &

Verba (1963) collected data on political attitude of people who dwell in UK, US, Italy, Mexico

and Germany that interpersonal trust is directly associated with democracy (Seligson, 2002;

Putnam, 1993). The argument that was forwarded for this association was simply that

interpersonal trust fosters cooperation between people, groups and organizations which is a

central pillow upon which a stable democracy rest. Inglehart (1999) clarifies the association

when he found that the relation between trust and democracy was a very strong one. This means

that democracy is fostered by adherence to laws, principles, structures and a particular system of

governance. Thus, democracy requires consensus from a personal, civic, and societal level.


       Despite the complexities of litigations in the contemporary societies, people will only

oblige the system if they are cooperative. It has happened before in our annals that people have

demonstrated against decisions handed down by the legislators and judiciaries.           In some

instances, these demonstrations have escalated into civil disobedience and civil protests against

the state. Nevertheless, like Fukuyama we believe that litigations foster cooperation, which does

not necessarily produce trust – example soldiers following the dictates of this superior, and this

does not necessarily means that he/she trust the commander; the paying taxes (property,

consumption or indirect taxes and even direct taxes). Embedded in this discourse is not only

cooperation but tolerance. It is because people decide to cooperation that they become tolerant

of others behaviour (Morgan, 2005; Zak and Knack, 2001).


       People’s confidence in sociopolitical institutions (proxy for trust) is build based on past

performance, the intent, motives, and credibility of the trustor (the person carrying out the

action) as well as based on the expectations of the trustee (person receiving the actions). Hence,

                                               46
some scholarships show that distrust emerged whenever the expectations of the trustee are not

met (Covey and Merrill, 2006; Lewicki, Tomlinson and Gillespie, 2006; Fukuyama, 1995),

which is referred to as negative expectations. Some intelligentsia believe that distrust occur when

confidence is low (Markόczy, 2003). Simply put, distrust is the opposite of trust. This speaks to

the unidimensional approach to the study of trust (Blind, 2007; Lewicki, Tomlinson, & Gillespie,

2006). Hence, if someone’s expectation is low, then it is not surprising when the individual’s

trust in low for the next person, organization or thing based on credibility issues with the trustor.

Low expectations are not fashioned on a single occurrence. Although this is possible on the

single visit because people formulate their opinion of someone or something from the first

interaction, but this is likely to be modified with more interactions. As such, when a concrete

position is taken because of repeated interactions, low expectations will emerge, and that this

implies low confidence (or distrust). Credibility denotes keeping ones works (Blinder, 2000).

And when credibility is questioned by the trustee, he/she is questioning trust, and distrust is

usually ensured to replace confidence in the trustor. The United Nations (2007) in explaining

social trust, states that it is people’s confidence in other member of the community, which we

believe covers socio-political institutions.


         There are scholarships that have identified factors that influence trust. The examples here
range from studies in China (Tang, 2005, United States and England (Torney-Purta, 2004) and
the Caribbean in particular Jamaica (Boxill et al. 2007; Bourne, Beckford, & Duncan, 2010). In
a sample survey research that was conducted in China in 2004, Tang (2005 find the following –
people reported the highest level of trust for family and relatives followed by friends,
neighbours, schoolmates and people who dwell in the same geographic area; and that age was
positively related to organizational trust; gender was not statistical related to local government
trust, education was not a factor of trust (p value > 0.05), civic trust is statistically associated
with interpersonal trust, trust is inversely related to problem solving by violence as it encourages
civic solutions, but ones party involvement increases ones level of trust (adjusted R2 = 4.6%).
Further examination of R-square revealed that they were very low. The R2 for United States was
10.8%, England (7.9 %,), Bulgaria (5%) and Chile (7.1%). However, the R2

                                                 47
in the study conducted by Bourne (2010) was 23.5%, with none given for Boxill et al work.

       Measuring Organizational Trust


       Before we continue any discourse on the issue of organizational trust, we must define

trust. The question is therefore, does confidence captures trust? Francis Fukuyama (1995), in

wanting people to understand the essence of this text on trust, he defined it as “the expectation

that arises within a community of regular, honest and cooperative behaviour based on commonly

shared norms on the part of other members of that society”. Fukuyama stops short of saying that

trust goes hand in hand with tolerance, cooperation, intent, honesty, and expectation. In addition

to the aforementioned issues, although he did not refer to confidence, it is embedded in tolerance,

cooperation, honesty and societal expectation. Unlike Francis Fukuyama, other scholars

unequivocally stated that confidence in entities is an indicator of trust manifestation. (Dogan,

2002; O’Neill, 2002).


       Trust is categorized into two main areas, (1) interpersonal trust, and (2) organizational

trust (or political trust) (Kramer & Taylor, 1995; Duck, 1997; Blind, 2007). The latter refers to

citizenry’s trust (or distrust) in politicians and/or politics due to satisfaction or dissatisfaction

with credibility of the various agents and their policies (Miller, 1974). Organizational trust is

people’s belief in political actors ( prime ministers, party presidents or leaders, and public

officials) and political institutions (such as parliament, judiciary, political parties, army, civil

service) to provide policies and programmes that will benefit them and protect their rights

Organizational trust (political trust) is at the nexus of cooperation and a relationship between

citizenry and those who represent them, whereas interpersonal trust (or social trust) speaks to the

confidence, cooperation, and that is shared between or among people (Putnam, 1993, 1995).

‘Thy word is thy bond’ is a critical property upon which social and political trust is based within

                                                 48
various societies. There is another side to this discourse, as some degree of distrust stimulates

fewer persons participating in socio-political institutions.


       Scholars like Powell, Bourne, and Waller measure interpersonal trust, as well as trust in

government by way of ascertaining people’s perspective on generalized trust. Hence, they asked

“Generally speaking, would say that most people are essentially good and can be trusted, or that

most people are not essentially good and cannot be trusted” (2007, p. 109). Powell, Bourne, &

Waller’s (2007, p.1) question to collect data on generalized trust differs marginally from that of

James, & Sykuta (2004) - "Generally speaking, do you believe that most people can be trusted or

that you can't be too careful in dealing with people?" Prior to Powell, Bourne and Waller, (2007),

a similar approach was used by other academics like Hardin, (1993), and Baier, (1986). The

operational definition of trust could be said to have begun with Almond, & Verba (1963) and the

World Values Survey in 1959 – “Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be

trusted or that you need to be very careful in dealing with people?” Two choices were given,

“most people can be trust” (coded 1) and “”need to be very careful” (coded 0). This is similar to

how trust in government was operationalized, by way of the generalized approach. Furthermore,

in the same nationally representative sample survey research of some 1,338 Jamaicans, Powell,

Bourne and Waller (20077) used a likert scale items to garner data on the degree of confidence

of residents. The researchers asked 22 different questions on particular sociopolitical institution,

in an attempt to ascertain people’s confidence (trust) in these institutions (Nye, 1997).

       Method


       This study utilizes primary observational data collected by the Centre of Leadership and

Governance, Department of Government, the University of the West Indies at Mona, Kingston,

Jamaica between July-August, 2006. The purpose of the survey was to collect observational data

                                                 49
on Jamaican’s political culture, which included pertinent information of basic orientation of

leadership, governance and democracy, perception wellbeing, trust and confidence in

sociopolitical institutions, political participation and civic engagement, electoral preferences and

leadership. The observational data were collected by way of a 166-item questionnaire. It was a

stratified nationally representative sample of some 1,338 Jamaicans (18 years and older), from

the 14 parishes with a sampling error of ± 3%: 95% Confidence level. The questionnaire

constitutes questions on civic culture and orientation to democracy, generalized trust which

constitutes core variables such as - interpersonal trust, institutional trust, confidence, perception

of wellbeing, crime and corruption, and political participation as well as the standard

demographic variables. The observational data were collected and stored using the Statistical

Packages for the Social Sciences for Widows version 17.0 (SPSS Inc; Chicago, IL, USA).

Dummy variables were created from some demographic and some other variables – sex, race,

religiosity, area of residence, generalized trust, unemployed person, perceived social class and

justice. Wellbeing and political participation were computed from a number of scale questions.

Descriptive statistics were done to provide background information on the sample; tests were

done for Cronbach alpha to examine the validity of the construct – i.e. wellbeing and political

participation. Then, logistic regression was used to build a model. A goodness of fit statistics

was done for the model.


       Using data from the literature and the scope of the dataset, Equation [1] was tested with

the available data:


       TS-P =ƒ (R i , Ei RA i , PPIi , Si , Ci , Oi , Xi , Wi , A i , Ji, AR i TG, T I )……..…[1]




                                                     50
       where T S-P is Organizational Trust of person i; R i is religiosity of person i; education of
       individual i, E i ; RA i denotes race of individual; PPI i means political participation index
       of individual i; Xi is sex of individual i; S i represents self-reported social class of
       individual i; Wi is wellbeing of person i; Ai - age of person i; Ji this is justice of person
       i, area of residence, AR i of person I, trust in government, TG; interpersonal trust , TI,
       perceived corruption in Jamaica, Ci of individual i; Occupation of person i, Oi.


       Of the 14 predisposed variables that were chosen to be used in this model, from the

observational data of the Powell, Bourne, & Waller (2007), 9 of them were statistically

significant ones (-2 Log likelihood = 885.024, χ2 (26) = 119.438, p value < 0.05). The 9

variables explain 19.2% (i.e. Nagelkerke r square) of the variance in organizational trust (Table

29). Hence, the final model is shown in Eq. (2).


       TS-P =ƒ (R i , PPIi , Ci , S i , Oi , Ji , AR i , TG , TI )……………………………..…[2]



Measure
Subjective Psychological Wellbeing Index, ‘W’. W = ΣQ i / Σf; where Q i is the selected value
from each ladder of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need, and ‘f’ being the frequency of the event. The
Cronbach α=0.762 for the 5-item variables, which are used to constitute this Index.
Political Participation Index, ‘PPI’. Based on Trevor Munroe’s work, ‘political participation’
“...the extent to which citizens use their rights, such as the right to protest, the right of free
speech, the right to vote, to influence or to get involved in political activity” (Munroe, 2002:4),
We use the construct forwarded by Munroe to formulate a PPI = Σbi , bi ≥ 0. The b i represents
each response to a question on political behaviour, such as voting, involvement in protest and
         19 t
0≤PPI≤ w ih a C ronbach                    he
                                     for t f scale is 0.76. The interpretation of the scores are
                                        ive-item
as follows – (1) low is between 0 and 7, (2) moderate ranges from 8 to 13, and (3) high means a
score from 14 to 19.
Organizational Trust (using confidence in sociopolitical institutions), TO. The TO = Σ f i .c i ,
where f i indicates the frequency of the occurrence of the event, and c i denotes the event. F i
ranges from 1=no confidence, 2=a little confidence, 3=some confidence, and 4=a lot of
confidence or extended listing of the ci). Confidence index = summation of 22 items, with each
question being weighted equally; and 0≤confidence index≤88, with a Cronbach α for the 22-item
scale being 0.896. The higher the scores, the more people have confidence in sociopolitical
institutions within the society. Thus, the confidence index is interpreted as from 0 to 34
represents very little confidence; 35 to 61 is low confidence; 62 to 78 is moderate confidence and
79 to 88 is most confidence.


                                                   51
Area of Residence, ‘AR’. This variable is the parish in which the individual lives while the
study was being conducted.
Sex, ‘X’. Sex is a binary measure, where 1=male and 0=female.

Trust in Government, TG, is a dummy variable which is based on the 1=trust in government and
0 is otherwise.


Subjective Social Class, ‘S’. This is people’s perception of their social and economic position in
life, based on social stratification.
  Class1                         1=Middle class, 0=other

  Class2                         1=Upper class, 0=other
The reference group is ‘Lower Classes


Educational Level, ‘E’.

       Edu_level1                     1=Primary/Preparatory, 0=Other

       Edu_level2                     1=All age, secondary and vocational skills, 0=other
       Edu_level3                     1=University, and professional training, 0=other

The reference group is ‘No formal’ education.


Justice, ‘J’. This variable is a non-metric variable, which speaks to people’s perception of the
‘fairness’ (or ‘fairness, for that matter as it relates to system favouring a few rich people within
the society) as in relation to the governance of the country. The construct will be dummy coded
as 1=Yes, and 0=No.


Governance of the country, G, is defined as people’s perception of administration of the society
by the elected officials. This is a dummy variable, where 1 denotes in favour of a few powerful
interest groups or the affluent, 0 is otherwise


Political Party Preference. This variable is measured based on an individual’s response to the
question –“Thinking back to the times you’ve voted in the past…would you say that you always
vote for the PNP candidate, or do you usually vote for the PNP and sometimes for the JLP, or do
you usually vote for the JLP candidate, or do you always vote for the JLP” (Powell, Bourne, &
Waller, 2007, p.117)


                                                52
       Results: Demographic characteristics of sample
       Of the sampled respondents (N=1,338), the response rate for the gender question was

96.9% (N=1,297). Of the valid respondents, 55.7% were females compared to 44.3% males

(Table 1). Of the number of males (N=574), 7.7% were elderly, 62.0% were other adults,

compared to 30.3% youth. On the other hand, of the females respondents (N=723), 5.1%

elderly, 59.3% other adults, and 35.5% youth. Based on the findings in Table 2, 67.9% of

Jamaicans distrust (i.e. low) sociopolitical institutions in the nations (Organizational distrust),

with only 2.3% of the sample indicated a high organizational trust compared to 29.8% a

moderate organizational trust. Disaggregating the organizational trust (or distrust) by gender

revealed the following results that 69.5% of females indicated distrust in sociopolitical

institutions compared to 66.0% males. On the other hand, with respect to a high trust in

organizations, 2.8% reported yes compared to 1.9% females.


       Of the sampled population who indicated a subjective state of social class (N=1,299,

97.1%), most of them were in the lower class (59.0%) compared to 4.4% in the upper class

(Table 1). Disaggregating these figures by gender revealed that 54.9% of the working class (i.e.

lower) was females, with 56.7% of the middle class, with only 50.9% of the upper class being

females. With respect to political participation, of the total population of 1,338, 1,289 people

were use to evaluate this question with a mean participation in Jamaica is 4.02 ± 3.73 (i.e. range

17: min 0 to maximum 17). Hence, average political participation is very low (i.e. 4 out of 17).

Further examination of political participation controlled for gender revealed that on an average

males have a higher participation (mean = 4.56 ± 3.9) compared to their female counterparts




                                                53
(mean = 3.60 ± 3.5). It should be noted here that females’ political participation is lower than

the national average of 4.56.




                                              54
Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of the Sampled Population

Variable                                     N                             Valid Percent

Political participation index 4.02 ± 3.73, range = 17: from 0 to 17 max.

Gender:
       Male                                  574                           44.3

       Female                                723                           55.7
Age group

       Youth                                 445                           33.3

       Other                                 810                           60.5
       Elderly                               83                            6.2

Organizational Trust
       Low                                   903                           67.9

       Moderate                              396                           29.8
       High                                  31                            2.3

Subjective Social Class:

       Lower                                 766                           59.0
       Middle                                476                           36.6

       Upper                                 57                            4.4
Ethnicity:

       African, Black                        1088                          82.0

       Indian                                32                            2.4
       Chinese                               4                             0.3

       European, Caucasian                   10                            0.8
       Mixed, Brown                          189                           14.2

       Other                                 4                             0.3




                                                  55
Hypothesis 1.1: There is a statistical relation between Organizational Trust (i.e. Organizational
Trust) and age group of respondents.


We found that there is no statistical association between Organizational Trust and age group of

respondents - χ2 (4) = 9.054, P= 0.060 > 0.05 (Table 2). Hence, this denotes that Jamaicans

trust in organization is not determine (or a factor) by age group of respondents, which suggested

that irrespective of the sampled respondents age, their trust in organization is the same.




Table 2: Bivariate analysis between Trust in sociopolitical institution and age group of
respondents, N=1,330

                                                              Age group of respondents
                                              Youth           Other Adults           Elderly



Organizational Trust:
        Very low to low                       72.2                   66.2                      61.4


        Middle                                26.7                   30.8                      36.1



        High                                  1.1                    3.0                       2.4




Count                                         442                    805                       83



χ2 (4) = 9.054, P= 0.060 > 0.05




                                                 56
Hypothesis 1.2:     There is a statistical association between Organization Trust and sex of
respondents.




We tested the aforementioned hypothesis [hypothesis 1.2], and no statistical relation was found

between the two variables - χ2 (2) = 2.325, P= 0.313 > 0.05 (Table 3). Thus, sex is not a factor

in perception of trust (or distrust) in Jamaican organizations.




Table 3:    Bivariate analysis between Organizational Trust and age group of respondents,
N=1,289

                                                               Sex of respondents
                                                      Female                        Male



Organizational Trust:
        Very low to low                               66.0                          69.5


        Middle                                        31.2                          28.6



        High                                          2.8                           1.9




Count                                                 568                           721



χ2 (2) = 2.325, P= 0.313 > 0.05




                                                 57
Hypothesis 1.3: There is a statistical association between Organizational Trust and Educational Level of respondents


From Table 4 [testing hypothesis 1.3], the results show that there was no statistical association between Organizational Trust and

educational level of respondents - χ2 (8) = 11.070, P= 0.198 > 0.05. Thus, there is no statistical difference between the educational

level of Jamaicans and how they trust Organizations.




Table 4: Bivariate analysis between Organizational Trust and age group of respondents, N=1,283

                                                                         Educational Level
                                                   No formal      Primary        Secondary      Post-secondary         Tertiary



Organizational Trust:
        Very low to low                            75.0           62.0           67.6                  66.4                72.0

        Middle                                     25.0           33.9           30.0                  31.5                25.7
        High                                       0.0            4.1            1.6                   2.1                 2.4



Count                                              20             242            447                      235                339



χ2 (8) = 11.070, P= 0.198 > 0.05


                                                                 58
Hypothesis 1.4a: There is a statistical association between Organizational Trust and Political Party Preference (i.e. PNP or JLP)


Using hypothesis 1.4a, from Table 5, the results show that there is statistical relation between Organizational Trust and political party

preference - χ2 (8) = 33.280, P= 0.001 < 0.05, with a very weak association (i.e. cc= 20.6%). From Table 40, Jamaicans who revealed

that they have ‘always voted for the People’s National Party [PNP]’ have a low degree of distrust (very low trust of 50.6%) compared

to someone who declared that they have ‘always voted for the Jamaica Labour Party [JLP]- 2.6%. Thus, it follows that the former

group of respondents are approximately twice (1.7 times) as trust at the highest degree compared to the latter group of people. Further,

the cross-tabulation revealed that people both have no political party preference indicated a higher level of organizational trust

compared to those who had reported a preference for the JLP.




                                                                   59
Table 5: Cross-tabulation between Organizational Trust and Political Party Preference (i.e. PNP or JLP), N=817

                                                                         Party Preference (PNP or JLP)
                                             Always PNP      Always JLP          Both           Usually PNP      Usually JLP



Organizational Trust:
        Very low to low                            50.6          73.3           65.3                  65.2          72.8

        Middle                                     45.1          24.1           31.3                  31.9          22.2
        High                                       4.3           2.6            3.5                   2.8           0.0



Count                                              326           116            144                      90            141



χ2 (8) = 36.280, P= 0.001 < 0.05, cc=0.206




                                                                60
Hypothesis 1.4b: There is a statistical relation between Organizational Trust and Political Party
one voted for in 2002 general elections (i.e. PNP, JLP or Other).




The cross-tabulation between organizational trust and who one voted for the 2002 general

election revealed a statistical relation between the 2 aforementioned variables - χ2 (4) = 34.844,

P= 0.001 < 0.05 (Table 6). Approximately 44% (N=587) of the observational data (1,338) were

used for the analysis of the bivariate analysis between organizational trust and political party

voted for in 2002 general elections, with a weak positive relation (contingency coefficient being

23.7%). We observed from Table 6 that those who voted for the Jamaica Labour Party (i.e. JLP)

was more distrusting of sociopolitical institutions in the nation (i.e. 76.4%) compared to those

who voted for the People’s National Party (i.e. PNP) – 51.7%, but these were lower than those

who voted other (77.8%).




Table 6: Bivariate between Organizational Trust and Political Party Voted for, N=587

                                             Political Party Voted in 2002 General Election
                                     PNP                    JLP                   OTHER



Organizational Trust:

        Very low to low              51.7                   76.4                  77.8
        Middle                       44.3                   22.2                  22.2

        High                         4.0                    1.5                   0.0




Count                                375                    203                   9

χ2 (4) = 34.844, P= 0.001 < 0.05, cc=0.237

                                               61
Hypothesis 1.5: People who are enumerated to vote are more likely to trust sociopolitical
institutions than those who are not enumerated to vote.


We tested the aforementioned hypothesis [hypothesis 1.5], and found that there is a statistical

relation between organizational trust and being enumerated to vote - χ2 (2) = 10.334, P= 0.006 <

0.05. However, the association was a very weak one – cc= 0.093 - i.e. the association between

the two variables is 9.3%. The general level of distrust in organizations in Jamaica was 68.1%,

but the level of distrust of those who indicated that they were enumerated to vote is less than the

general distrust (i.e. 64.7%, Table 7). With respect to those who were not enumerated to vote,

74% of them revealed that they have a low trust (i.e. distrust) in sociopolitical organizations in

the country. In addition to the distrust, those who are enumerated to vote are 2 times likely to

reveal a high degree of organizational trust compared to those who were not enumerated to vote.


Table 7: Association between Organizational Trust and Enumerated to vote, N=1,195

                                                            Enumerated to Vote
                                                     No                            Yes

Organizational Trust:

        Very low to low                              74.0                          64.7
        Middle                                       24.7                          32.5

        High                                         1.4                           2.8



Count                                                361                           834

χ2 (2) = 10.334, P= 0.006 < 0.05




                                                62
Hypothesis 1.6: People who are enumerated to vote are more likely to trust sociopolitical institutions than those who are not
enumerated to vote controlled for sex.
Further examination of organizational trust and enumerated to vote controlled for sex revealed that the relation between organization
trust and enumerated to vote is explained by male (i.e. χ2 (2) = 7.474, P= 0.024 < 0.05, cc=0.119) and not being female (i.e. χ2 (2) =
3.567, P= 0.168 > 0.05, Table 8).


Table 8: Cross-tabulation between Organizational Trust and Enumerated to vote controlled by sex, N=1, 157

                                                                              Enumerated to vote
                                                       No              Yes                               No                        Yes




Organizational Trust:                                         Male 2                                              Female 3


          Very low to low                              74.8            62.0                               73.3               67.4
          Middle                                       23.0            35.4                               25.7               29.8

          High                                         2.2             2.6                                1.0                2.8



Count                                                  139             379                                  206                43




2
    χ2 (2) = 7.474, ρ value = 0.024 < 0.05, cc=0.119
3
    χ2 (2) = 3.567, ρ value = 0.168 > 0.05
                                                                   63
Hypothesis 1.7: Those who participate in general elections (i.e. voted in 2002 general elections)
are more likely to trust sociopolitical institutions than those who did not participate.


A cross-tabulation between organizational trust and those who voted in the 2002 general election

found that there is a statistical relation between two aforementioned variables - χ2 (2) = 17.237,

P= 0.001 < 0.05 (Table 9). However, the association was a very weak one – cc= 0.131 - i.e. the

association between the two variables is 13.1%. The general level of distrust in organizations in

Jamaica was 68.1%, but the level of distrust of those who indicated that they had voted in the

2002 general elections was less than for those who did not vote (i.e. 60.9% and 74.0%

respectively, Table 9). With respect to those who reported that they had not voted in 2002

general elections, 74% of them revealed that they had a low trust (i.e. distrust) in sociopolitical

organizations in the country, compared to 60.9% of those who voted.


Table 9: Cross-tabulation between Organizational Trust and Voted in the last General Elections,
N=981

                                                              Voted in Last General Elections (i.e. 2002)4
                                                              No                                  Yes

Organizational Trust:
        Very low to low                                       74.0                                60.9
        Middle                                                24.0                                36.3

        High                                                  2.0                                 2.9



Count                                                         350                                 631

χ2 (2) = 17.237, P= 0.001 < 0.05, cc=0.131



4
 The rationale for the ‘voted in last general elections (i.e 2002), even though the last one was in 2007 is because
the observational data were collected in July to August of 2006 in preparation for understanding voting behaviour
and wanting to forecast the 2007 general election – See Bourne (2007a, 2007b)

                                                        64
Hypothesis 1.8: People who are enumerated to vote are more likely to trust sociopolitical institutions than those who are not
enumerated to vote controlled for sex.
An examination of organizational trust by those who voted in the last general election (i.e. 2002) controlled for sex revealed that the
relation between organization trust and enumerated to vote is explained by both male (i.e. χ2 (2) = 14.183, P= 0.001 < 0.05) and
female (i.e. χ2 (2) = 7.143, P= 0.028 < 0.05, Table 10). In regard to the strength of the statistical relation, we found that it was higher
for males (17.8%) compared to females (11.6%). The rationale behind the 13.1% (Table 9) is low because the relationship is weaker
for female than male. An analysis of Table 9 showed that men who voted in the 2002 general reported are 4.2% less likely to distrust
sociopolitical institutions (i.e. 58.6%) compared to their female counterparts (62.8%).


Table 10: Cross-tabulation between Organizational Trust and Voted in last General Elections controlled by sex, N=953

                                                                               Voted in last general elections (i.e. 2002)

                                                      No                Yes                                  No                        Yes




Organizational Trust:                                          Male 5                                                 Female 6


          Very low to low                             75.9              58.6                                 73.5                62.8
          Middle                                      20.6              38.7                                 25.5                34.4

          High                                        3.5               2.7                                  1.0                 2.8



Count                                                 141               292                                     200                320

5
    χ2 (2) = 14.183, ρ value = 0.001 < 0.05, cc=0.178, N=433
6
    χ2 (2) = 7.143, ρ value = 0.028< 0.05, cc=0.116, N=520
                                                                    65
Hypothesis 1.9: Cross-tabulation between Organizational trust and perception of corruption


There is a statistical relation between Organizational Trust and people’s perception as to whether

or not there is corruption within the nation - χ2 (2) = 6.442, P= 0.040 < 0.05 (Table 11), with a

very weak statistical association between the two aforementioned variables (i.e. 7.0%). Of the

number of respondents who indicated that corruption does exist within the nation (n=283),

approximately 8% more of them distrust organizations (low to very low trust in sociopolitical

institutions) compared those who reported that there is no corruption in Jamaica. Approximately

twice the number of respondents who indicated that corruption does not exist in Jamaica had a

high organizational trust compared to those who reported that they believed that corruption was

present in the nation (Table 11).




Table 11:      Bivariate analysis between Organizational Trust and Perception of Corruption,
N=1,290

                                                    Perception of corruption in the nation

                                                    No                     Yes



Organizational Trust:

        Very low to low                             65.7                          73.5

        Middle                                      31.7                          25.1
        High                                        2.6                           1.4



Count                                               1007                          283

χ2 (2) = 6.442, P= 0.040 > 0.05, cc=0.070




                                               66
Hypothesis 1.10: There is a statistical association between Organizational Trust and People’s perception as to whether or not
corruption exists in the society.
Further examination of organizational trust and perception of corruption controlled for sex revealed that the relation between

organization trust and perception of corruption is explained by male (i.e. χ2 (2) = 7.471, P= 0.024 < 0.05, Table 12) and not being

female (i.e. χ2 (2) = 2.55, P= 0.279 > 0.05). The findings, in Table 3, revealed that 12.6% more males who indicated that corruption

existed in Jamaica distrust sociopolitical institutions (using very low to low trust as a proxy for distrust) compared to those who said

that it did not exist.

Table 12. Cross-tabulation between Organizational Trust and Perception of Corruption, N=1,290

                                                                              Perception of Corruption in Nation
                                                            No         Yes                               No                        Yes

           Organizational Trust:                                   Male 7                                               Female 8
           Very low to low                                  62.1       74.7                              68.0                74.2

           Middle                                           34.9       23.3                               29.7               25.0

           High                                             3.0        2.1                                2.3                0.8



Count                                                       401        146                                  575                128




7
    χ2 (2) = 7.471, ρ value = 0.024< 0.05, cc=0.16, N=547
8
    χ2 (2) = 2.551, ρ value = 0.279 > 0.05, N=703

                                                                      67
       The findings displayed in Figure 1.1 (i.e. hypothesis 1.11, below) revealed that a statistical relation existed between

Organizational Trust and Parish of Residence of the respondents – χ2 (26) = 191.776, p value = 0.001. The relation between two

aforementioned variables was a statistically weak one (i.e. contingency coefficient = 0.356 or 35.6%), with a 1% change in parish of

residence explaining a 12.7% change in organizational trust. Further perusal of figure 1.1 showed that people who resided in St.

James and Clarendon reported the greatest degree of distrust (83.9% and 83.3% low organizational trust respectively), with those

dwelling in Kingston reporting the highest level of trust for sociopolitical institutions in the nation (i.e. 54.9%) followed by those who

lived in Westmoreland (51%) then by those who resided in St. Mary (48.5%). Approximately 57% of the those people who resided in

the various parishes reported a distrust that was in excess of 70% (low degree of organizational trust) – in addition to St. James and

Clarendon, they were Manchester (76.8%), Portland (73.5%), St. Andrew (72.3%), St. Ann (77.7%), St. Catherine (72.8%), and St.

Elizabeth (74.8%) (Figure 1.1). It should be noted here that although Kingston is bordered by St. Thomas, St. Andrew and St.

Catherine, it shares a low trust in sociopolitical institutions like St. Thomas (57.5%) unlike St. Catherine and St. Andrew that had high

distrust, with those who lived in St. Catherine and St. Andrew sharing a relatively high distrust (or a high trust) in organizations in the

nation (Figure 1).




                                                                    68
Hypothesis 1.11: There is a statistical relation between Organizational Trust and Parish of Residence



                      St. Catherine
                         Clarendon
                       Manchester
                       St. Elizebeth
                     Westmoreland
 Area of Residence




                           Hanover
                          Trelawny
                          St. James
                            St. Ann
                           St. Mary
                          Portland
                        St. Thomas
                       St. Andrew
                          Kingston

                                       0   10   20   30     40                50         60   70        80   90
                                                                 Percentage

                                                           High     Moderate       Low




Figure 1: Organizational Trust by Parish of Residence




                                                                    69
The 10 most distrusting socio-political institutions in Jamaica (using low trust) in ascending are

listed below in Table 13. The study found that Jamaicans level of confidence in the judiciary is

very low, which is even lower for Central Government, Local Government, Parliament, and

Political Parties.




Table 13: The 10- most distrusting socio-political Institutions in Jamaica, N=1,338

Institutions                               Count                             Percentage



Private Sector                                     534                                41.3

Large Corporations                                 593                                46.0

Armed Forces                                       598                                46.1

Trade Unions                                       606                                49.8

Police                                             702                                53.3

Judiciary, Courts                                  716                                55.4

Government                                         734                                56.2

People’s National Party                            757                                59.1

Local Government council                           771                                59.7

Parliament                                         803                                62.2

Political parties                                  910                                69.7

Jamaica Labour Party                               894                                70.0 9

Compiled by Paul Bourne from dataset of Powell, Bourne and Waller (2007)
9
 Jamaica Labour Party level of distrust was significantly more than that of the People’s National Party, and the
observational data were collected during when the People’s National Party was in government ( July-August, 2006)

                                                      70
In Jamaica, the level of organizational distrust is very high (67.9%).                 However, there are

particular institutions in which people have significant confidence. These include families,

schools, universities and colleges, churches, and the least being the prime minister. Findings

from Table 14 reveal that Jamaicans have the greatest confidence (trust) in families (i.e. 92.3%),

with trust in schools being 91.9%, universities and colleges (90.2%), banks (72.1%) compared to

the prime minister (60% trust).




Table 14: The 6-least distrusting sociopolitical institutions in Jamaica, N=1,338

Institutions                              Count                             Percentage



Families                                          95                                7.2

Schools                                           107                               8.1

Universities                                      127                               9.8

Churches                                          227                               17.1

Banks                                             368                               27.9

Prime Minister                                    507                               40.0 10

Compiled by Paul Bourne from dataset of Powell, Bourne & Waller (2007)




10
 This response was during the time when the People’s national Party was in power and Mrs. Portia Simpson-
Miller was the prime minister of Jamaica - July-August, 2006.

                                                       71
Hypothesis 1.12: Organizational Trust (i.e. Sociopolitical Trust) by Ethnicity


Of the 6-most trusting sociopolitical organizations in Jamaica, the sample population trusts the

prime minister the least (Figure 2). Jamaicans of ‘Other’ ethnicities reported the highest level of

trust in organizations, with the least reported being in the Prime Minister (i.e. 75% at the time

Mrs. Portia Simpson-Miller was prime minister), and banks (75%).




                 Other




                 Mixed




              Caucasian
  Ethnicity




               Chinese
                                                                                                                       Prime Minister
                                                                                                                       Banks
                 Indian                                                                                                Churches
                                                                                                                       Universities
                                                                                                                       Schools
                African                                                                                                Families



                          0             20            40             60               80           100           120

                              African        Indian        Chinese        Caucasian        Mixed         Other
  Prime Minister               60.4          62.1            75             71.4           55.8           75
  Banks                         72           77.4            75             66.7           70.8           75
  Churches                     83.4          80.6           100             66.7           79.5          100
  Universities                 90.7          77.4            75             100             89           100
  Schools                      92.3          83.9            75              75            91.8          100
  Families                     93.8          87.1            75             87.5           88.6          100

                                                             Percentage




Figure 2: The 6-most trusting institutions by Ethnicity

                                                                              72
Hypothesis 1.13: Organizational Trust (Sociopolitical Trust) by Education Attainment


Generally, when we examined trust in selected (6-most trusting) organizational institutions by

educational attainment (Figure 3), we found that irrespective of educational attainment of the

individual the most trusted socio-political institution was the family followed by schools, and the

institution that was the least trusted was the Prime Minister. Interestingly, tertiary level educated

respondents trusted the Prime Minister the least (55.7%).




                                Tertiary



                                                                                                       Prime Minister
                          Post-Secondary
                                                                                                       Banks

                                                                                                       Churches
              Ethnicity




                              Secondary                                                                Universities

                                                                                                       Schools

                                                                                                       Families
                                Primary




                               No formal



                                            0   20        40      60      80        100          120

                                                                          Post-
                                    No formal   Primary    Secondary                  Tertiary
                                                                        Secondary
              Prime Minister           64.7      68.8          57.5       59.6            55.8
              Banks                    77.8      75.1          71.5       74.7            68.5
              Churches                     90    85.5          80.6        85             81.4
              Universities             88.9          91        88.8       89.1            92
              Schools                  94.1      95.5          90.7       92.3            90.6
              Families                 100       92.5          92.6       92.3            92.6

                                                           Percentage




Figure 3: Trusting of selected Organizations by educational attainment


                                                                 73
Hypothesis 1.14: There is a statistical difference between the gender of respondents and trust in

family.


We have found that there is no statistical relation between bivariate analysis between trust in

families and gender of respondents - χ2 (1) = 0.087, P= 0.427 > 0.05. (See Table 15)


Table 15: Bivariate analysis between Trust in Families and Gender of respondents, N=1,277

                                                    Gender of respondents

                                                    Male                   Female



Trust in families:

          Trust                                     92.9                            92.4
          Distrust                                  7.1                             7.6




Count                                               562                             715

χ2 (1) = 0.087, P= 0.427 > 0.05




                                               74
Hypothesis 1.15: There is a statistical difference between the age group of respondents and trust

in family


The findings revealed that there is no statistical relation between bivariate analysis between trust

in families and age group of respondents - χ2 (2) = 1.073, P= 0.585 > 0.05. (See Table 16)


Table 16: Bivariate analysis between Trust in Families and Age groups of respondents, N=1,318

                                                     Age group of respondents

                                      Youth                  Other Adults                   Elderly



Trust in families:

        Trust                         92.0                   93.0                           95.1
        Distrust                      8.0                    7.0                            4.9




Count                                 438                    799                            81

χ2 (2) = 1.073, P= 0.585 > 0.05




                                                75
Hypothesis 1.16: There is a statistical difference between the gender of respondents and trust in

school.


A cross-tabulation between trust in schools and gender of respondents reveal that there is no

statistical association between the two aforementioned variables - χ2 (1) = 0.001, P= 0.970 >

0.05 (Table 17)


Table 17: Bivariate analysis between Trust in Schools and Gender of respondents, N=1,280

                                                    Gender of respondents
                                                    Male                  Female



Trust in Schools:
          Trust                                     91.8                           91.8

          Distrust                                  8.2                            8.2




Count                                               562                            715

χ2 (1) = 0.087, P= 0.427 > 0.05




                                               76
Hypothesis 1.17: There is a statistical difference between age group of respondents and trust in

family


An examination of the cross-tabulation between trust in schools and age group of respondents

show that there is no statistical relations between trust in schools and age group of people in the

sampled population (N=1,321) - χ2 (2) = 3.469, P= 0.176 > 0.05. (See Table 18)


Table 18: Bivariate analysis between Trust in Families and Age groups of respondents, N=1,321

                                                     Age group of respondents
                                      Youth                 Other Adults                   Elderly



Trust in families:
         Trust                        92.7                  91.0                           96.3

         Distrust                     7.3                   9.0                            3.7




Count                                 440                   799                            82

χ2 (2) = 03.469, P= 0.176 > 0.05




                                                77
Hypothesis 1.18: There is a statistical difference between the gender of respondents and trust in

church


Based on Table 19, we found a statistical relation between trust in churches (i.e. confidence in)

and gender of respondents - χ2 (1) = 11.029, P= 0.001 < 0.05. Approximately 7% more males

distrust the church compared to 14.2% females. This means that 78.7% of males had a high

confidence in the church compared to 85.8% of females.


Table 19: Bivariate analysis between Trust in Churches and Gender of respondents, N=1,282

                                                    Gender of respondents

                                                    Male                  Female



Trust in Churches:

         Trust                                      78.7                           85.8
         Distrust                                   21.3                           14.2




Count                                               562                            715

χ2 (1) = 11.029, P= 0.001< 0.05




                                               78
Hypothesis 1.19: There is a statistical difference between age group of respondents and trust in

church


The cross-tabulation between trust in churches and age group of respondents show that there is

no statistical relations between the two aforementioned variables (N=1,323) - χ2 (2) = 3.939, P=

0.140 > 0.05 (Table 20). Based on Table 26, there is no statistical difference between the

various age groups and the sampled respondents’ perception of trusts or distrust in churches.


Table 20:        Bivariate analysis between Trust in Churches and Age groups of respondents,
N=1,323

                                                    Age group of respondents

                                      Youth                 Other Adults                  Elderly



Trust in Churches:

         Trust                        84.7                  81.3                          88.0
         Distrust                     15.3                  18.7                          12.0




Count                                 438                   802                           83

χ2 (2) = 3.939, P= 0.140 > 0.05




                                               79
Hypothesis 1.20: There is a statistical relation between trusting the government and trust in

sociopolitical organizations (i.e. organizational trust)


An examination of organizational trust and trust in government reveal that there is a statistical

relation between the two aforementioned variables - χ2 (3) = 58.51, P= 0.014 < 0.05. The

statistical association is a very weak one (contingency coefficient = 21.3%). Further inquiry of

Table 21 reveals, that of the 8% of those who reported that they trust the government,

approximately 44% of them have a low trust in organization, with only 12.1% having a high trust

in organization. Some 8 times more of those who trust government have a high trust for

sociopolitical institutions (organizational trust or confidence), with approximately 2 times more

of those indicated that they trust the government revealed a moderate trust in organization.




Table 21: Bivariate analysis between Organizational Trust and Trust in government, N=1,232

                                                              Trust in government
                                                       No                           Yes



Organizational Trust:
        Very low                                       3.0                          3.0

        Low                                            67.5                         41.4

        Moderate                                       27.9                         43.4
        High                                           1.6                          12.1



Count                                                  1133                         99

χ2 (3) = 58.51, P= 0.014< 0.05




                                                  80
Hypothesis 1.21: There is a statistical relation between organizational trust and economic state
of an individual


A cross-tabulation between organizational trust and the economic situation of the individual in

being able to cover his/her needs reveal that there is statistical relation between the two

aforementioned variables - χ2 (3) = 10.803, P= 0.013 < 0.05 (Table 22). Further examination of

the bivariate relationship reveals that there is a very weak positive one (contingency coefficient =

9.2%), which means that the more people perceive that their economic situation can cover their

needs the more they will trust organizations, with 32.3% of the respondents trusting the different

organizations. Based on the findings in Table 4, an individual who is able to cover his/her needs

with some savings, he/she will trust socio-political institutions (38.5%) more than another who

reported that all he/she is able to ‘just’ cover his/her needs (37.1%) compared to 28.6% for those

who indicated that they cannot cover their needs.


Table 22: Bivariate analysis between Organizational Trust and Economic situation of an
individual N=1,270

                                              Economic situation of individual to cover needs

                              Can save        Cover          can’t cover            can’t cover
                                                             with difficulty        great difficulty



Organizational Trust:
        No                    61.5            62.9                   71.4                   70.7

        Yes                   38.5            37.1                   28.6                   29.3




Count                         169             337                     518                   246

χ2 (3) = 10.803, P= 0.013 < 0.05

                                                81
       Modeling Organizational Trust: Correlates and predictors

       The second aspect to this study is a model organizational trusts in Jamaica, which is to

identify and state the degree of each variables impact on organizational trust. Thus, we will use

logistic regression to test Eq. [1], from which a final model will emerge on what constitute

organizational trust in Jamaica, and the extent of influence of each of the identified variables as

well as ascertain the overall influence of the final model.


       Modeling Organizational Trust in Jamaica by selected predisposed Variables, which is

based on the observational data collected in study carried by Powell, Bourne and Waller (2007)

on the behalf of the Centre of Leadership and Governance, Department of Government, the

University of the West Indies at Mona, Jamaica, is shown below.


       Of the 14 predisposed variables that were chosen to be used in this model, from the
observational data of the Powell, Bourne and Waller (2007), 9 were statistically significant (-2
Log likelihood = 885.024, χ2 (26) = 119.438, p value < 0.05). The 9 variables explain 19.2%
(Nagelkerke r2 ) of the variance in organizational trust (Table 29). Hence, the final model is
shown in Eq. (2).

       TS-P =ƒ (R i , PPIi , Ci , S i , Oi , Ji , AR i , TG , TI )……………………………..…[2]



       Before we are report on the findings of the model, we will evaluate whether or not the

model fits the observational data. “The Classification of Table” was used to compare the

predicted to the observed outcomes. The Table reveals that two-hundred and forty-eight

respondents were incorrectly classified: 167 of these who reported that they trust in sociopolitical

institutions and 81 who did not. Overall, 73.9% of the 571 respondents were correctly classified:

32.7 % of those with ‘trust organizations in nation’ and 91.8% of those who had no trust in

sociopolitical institutions (Table 23).



                                                 82
Table 23: Classification Table of Organizational Trust

                                                               Predicted
                 Observed
                                                      Organizational
                                                          Trust             Percentage
                                                                             Correct


                                                      No        Yes



                                                        524            47         91.8
                                 No
                 Organ. Trust

                                 Yes
                                                        167            81         32.7


                 Overall Percentage                                               73.9




       Having established that the model is a fit for the observational data, we will now analyze

the various single variables as well as their extent on the dependent variable (organizational

trust). The 3 most substantial variables in equation [2] are the administration of justice in the

country (Wald statistic= 13.46), followed by living in Clarendon (Wald statistic = 9.45) or

dwelling in St. James (Wald statistic = 9.3), which are in reference to St. Mary, then by

subjective social class (Wald statistic = 7.6) – with is middle class in reference to working class

(Table 28).


       In addition to the significance of particular variables identified in the aforementioned

paragraph, some revealing findings will now be discussed. We found negative statistical

associations among 4 of the 9 factors that were statistically significant variables. These variables

were (1) perception of corruption, (2) administration of justice in the society, (3) religiosity, and
                                                 83
(4) area of residence. Further examination revealed that each of the 4 negative variables would

reduce the level of trust in organization in the country. With regard to religiosity, the less an

individual attends church outside of special occasions (i.e. baptism, christening, wedding,

funerals, et cetera); he/she will trust organization less in the society.


        On the other hand, 5 of the 9 factors do positively influence organization trust. (Table 9),

and these are as follows – trust in government, interpersonal trust, occupation, political

participation, and social class.     We found that an individual who trust the government in

reference to those who do not are 2 times more likely to trust organizational institutions in the

society (OD = 2.1, 95% CI: 1.2 to 3.7). Furthermore, a person who classify him/herself as in the

lower professions is 1.5 times (OD = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.03 to 2.20) more likely to trust

sociopolitical organization in referent to those in the high professions – for example managers,

medicine, teaching et cetera. Interpersonal trust was the same as occupation (OR = 1.5, 95% CI:

1.06 to 2.13).


        In addition to aforementioned positive factor is subjective social class. We found that

those in the middle class with referent to lower class is 1.7 times (OR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.16 to

2.36) more likely to trust organizational institutions in nation (Table 24).




                                                   84
Table 24: Logistic Regression: Public confidence in organizations by some demographic, and

political variables



                         β Coefficient    P     Odds
                                                ratio      CI (95%)


                                                        Lower    Upper
          Trust                 0.745    0.00    2.11     1.20     3.70
          (gov’t)                           9
          Race1                 0.390    0.63    1.48     0.30        7.28
                                            1
          Race2                -0.111    0.88    0.90     0.21        3.80
                                            1
          Occupation            0.409    0.03    1.51     1.03        2.20
                                            5
          Political             0.056    0.03    1.06     1.01        1.11
          participatio                      0
          n
          Sex                   0.200    0.24    1.22     0.87        1.71
                                            3
          Perceived            -0.456    0.03    0.63     0.42        0.96
          corruption                        0
          Wellbeing             0.079    0.14    1.08     0.97        1.20
                                            6
          Interperson           0.404    0.02    1.50     1.06        2.13
          al                                3
          Trust
          Justice              -0.700    0.00    0.50     0.34        0.72
                                            0
          Religiosity          -0.103    0.01    0.90     0.83        0.98
                                            2
          socialcl1             0.503    0.00    1.65     1.16        2.36
                                            6
          socialcl2             0.732    0.06    2.08     0.94        4.58
                                            9
          Age                   0.007    0.30    1.01     0.99        1.02
                                            9
          Clarendon            -1.449    0.00    0.24     0.09        0.59
                                            2
          Hanover              -0.102    0.78    0.90     0.44        1.87
                                            4
          Kingston              0.244    0.56    1.28     0.56        2.94

                                                85
                                          5
         Manchester          -1.048    0.00    0.35   0.16   0.77
                                          9
         Portland            -0.969    0.01    0.38   0.18   0.80
                                          0
         St Andrew           -1.096    0.01    0.33   0.15   0.77
                                          0
         St Ann              -0.444    0.29    0.64   0.28   1.46
                                          1
         St                  -0.634    0.10    0.53   0.25   1.14
         Catherine                        5
         St Elizabeth        -1.039    0.00    0.35   0.17   0.74
                                          6
         St James            -1.320    0.00    0.27   0.11   0.63
                                          2
         St Thomas            0.014    0.96    1.01   0.51   2.00
                                          8
         Trelawny            -0.143    0.74    0.87   0.37   2.05
                                          5
         Constant            -1.075    0.25    0.34
                                          7
-2 Log Likelihood = 885.024
Nagelkerke R square = 0.192 (or 19.2%)
Chi-square (26) = 119.438, p value = 0.001
N=819, 61.2%




                                              86
Is the model identified in equation [2] a predictive one? We will use the log formula to establish

whether or not our model in equation [2] is a predictive one.

TS-P =ƒ (R i , PPIi , Ci , S i , Oi , Ji, AR i TG, T I, )……………………..………………..…[2]


         Prob (event) = 1 / (1 + e-z) ………………………………………………………….[4.1]

       Z = B0 + B1 X 1 + B2 X 2 + B3 X 3 + B4 X 4 + …+ Bp X    p   ……………………….……. [4.2]


       where B0 is the value for the constant and B1 to B p are the coefficients estimated from the

data, X is the independent variable and Z is a component within the probability of the event

occurring. We will now illustrate the use of Z below as follows – let us replace each X with the

variable that is statistically significant from the model in along with the constant and the

estimators - Table (25) –


Z = -1.075 + 0.745(T G) + 0.409 (Oi ) + 0.056(PPIi ) – 0.456(Ci ) + 0.404(T I ) – 0.700 (J i ) – 0.103
(R i ) + 0.503(S i ) + β (AR i ) …..………………………………..……………………………. [4.2]

Z= - 0.747 (see Table 31)


We will use the log formula in [4.2]:


Prob (event) = 1 / (1 + e-z) ………………………………………………………………….[4.1]




                                                  87
As the formula that will test the predictive power of the predisposed factors


Option 1: In each cases, 1 denotes that the individual trust the government as well as other

people, lower occupation, corruption, administration of justice that benefits all equally, middle

class with referent to lower class and the area of residence that will be used is Portland because it

has the least impact on the organizational trust, 7 is used for political participation because it

indicates the highest value for the lowest degree of political participation, and


Option 1[see Table 3, below]:


Prob (event) = 1 / (1 + e-0.747)


              = 1/ (1 + 0.47378578)


              = 1/1. 47378578 = 0.678 (˜ 0.7) (for option 1)


hence, the model is a predictive one for option 1 (Table 31).


Option 2: In each cases, 0 denotes that the person does not trust government or other persons,

upper occupation, believe that there is no corruption, administration of justice that does not

benefits all equally, the individual is in lower class and the area of residence that will be used is

Clarendon because it has the least impact on the organizational trust, 7 is used for political

participation because it indicates the highest value for the lowest degree of political participation,

and




                                                 88
Option 2[Table 3]:


Prob (event) = 1 / (1 + e-2.524)


              = 1/ (1 + 0.080138411)


              = 1/1. 080138411 = 0.925 (for option 2)


Hence, the model is a predictive one for option 2.


Table 25


Variable                   Option 1                    Option 2

TG:                        0.745                       0

Oi :                       0.409                       0

PPIi                       0.392

Ci:                        -0.456                      0

TI:                        0.404                       0

Ji:                        -0.700                      0

S i:                       0.503                       0

AR i:                      -0.969                      -1.449

Constant                   -1.075                      -1.075

Z=                         -0.747                      -2.524




We can now conclude that TS-P =ƒ (R i , PPIi , Ci , S i , Oi , J i, ARi TG, T I, ) is a predictive model for

organization trust and more than mere factors.



                                                    89
       Limitation of the Model


       The initial Model [T S-P =ƒ (R i , PPIi , Ci , Si , Oi , Ji, AR i TG, T I, )] assumes that trust is

continuous over time, which is furthest from the reality as organization trust is continually

change based on people’s perception of the various sociopolitical organization at a static

‘snapshot’ time. But the dataset from which the Model is derived is at a static ‘snapshot’

moment in time and this does not take into consideration different time intervals. Trust is fluid;

and therefore, any measure of this construct must include the fact that trust is continuously

changing over ones lifetime based on the perception of trustor (the decision maker) or trustee

(receiver of the trust); and this may even change over short periods of time. Hence, we must

make a modification to the initial model to include time intervals, t, as an important factor:



       T S-P =ƒ (R i , PPIi , Ci , S i , Oi , J i, ARi TG, T I, t)



       Discussion and Conclusion

       The aim of this study was two-fold within the broader context of organizational trust.

Firstly, to build an organizational trust model for socio-political institutions in Jamaica (using

confidence in 22-socio-political institutions in the society) as well as to examine the top five and

the lower five institutions in regard to public confidence (trust) in them. Secondly, from the

model ascertain what is the explanatory power of the final model, and from the identify model

examine the explanation of each of the significant factors as well as ascertain whether the model

is a predictive one. In summary, the literature has shown perception is a ‘good’ evaluation of

reality as people are best able to determine what affects them.              Hence, using Jamaicans’




                                                         90
perception, this paper has modeled trust in organizations. We have found that 9-factor influence

organizational trust, with an explanation of 19.2% – Nagelkerke R2 = 19%.


       One of the delimitation of a snapshot study is that information is specialized to the time

period and that trust is not static, hence we have included time, t, as an additional variable to

address the issue of continuity. Why did we choose to use only the number of predisposed

variables in this study and not more? The answer to this question is primarily because the

observational data gathered; and so, we do not claim to provide all the answers to the

organizational trust discourse but this model provides a premise for which we can understand the

debate. It should be noted here that in this study, the model only explain 19.2% of the variance

in organizational trust compared to Tang’s work (2005) that identified 13 variables and that they

explain 4.6% of the model (adjusted R2). In a five country study on trust in government and

related institutions among adolescents, Torney-Purta (2004) found that each of the model had a

low R-square – Bulgaria (0.05); Chile (0.071); Colombia (0.054); England (0.071) and the

United States (0.108). Thus our model is a very good one. Furthermore, the factors identified in

this research are predictive in nature.


       In recent times, there is a widespread perception that corruption is rampant in Jamaica,

and with the unprecedented number of police officers that have been charged for corruption

coupled with upsurge of crime and violence in nation is making people highly suspicious

(distrusting) of organization, and other persons in the society. For some time now, people have

been arguing that corruption does not influence trust; the findings of this research have disproved

this notion as perception of corruption does affect organization trust. The finding in this research

concurs with Uslaner’s work (2005, p.262) that corruption is inversely related to trust. Unlike

Uslaner, we found that the relation between the two aforementioned variables to be a weak

                                                91
negative one (single correlation coefficient, phi = - 0.069). Furthermore, he forwards the

perspective that there is no evidence to support that a change in corruption will result in changes

in trust. This study is offering some clarification as we have found that the more people believe

that corruption exist in the society, the less they will trust organizations [B=-0.456, Exp (B)

=0.634, 95% CI – 0.420 to 0.958, p value=0.030 < 0.05].


       Corruption destroys integrity and credibility. People do not trust blindly forever, and so

they will modify their trust in times based on past performance, integrity and credibility of the

trustor. If people have come to expect disingenuous behaviour, unfulfilled promises,

misappropriate of funds, inequality and injustices, graft, dishonesty, kleptocracy, cronyism, poor,

bride, deception and collusion, and management practices, one thing that this will change is

people’s trust in others and in organizations. Thus, Jamaicans high probability of evading taxes is

a by-product of low trust society. (Uslaner, 2005, p. 263). Although it appears difficult for some

people to comprehend ‘tax evasion’, this is coming from people’s perception of the injustices,

dishonesty, the ‘broken’ promises and inequalities within the society. People do not void

themselves of their sociopolitical milieu in how they act, and this helps to fashion their

behaviour. And this should inform human resource practitioners, publicists and others that

people will reduce their confidence in an organization, if they believe that corruption exists

therein.


       This study has found that general organization trust (i.e. confidence in sociopolitical

institutions) is very low – that is, 7 out of 10 persons do not trust organizations in the nations –

however, there a particular institution in which people still reported great trust.          These

organizations are like (1) family (9 out of 10 ); (2) Church ( 8 out of 10); (3) schools (9 out of

10); universities (9 out of 10); banks (7 out of 10). Nevertheless, some institutions do not seem

                                                92
to be resonating with the public as they distrust these organizations. The examples here are

political parties; parliament, local government, and central government (Table 10).           Those

findings are not unique as the literature shows that the family is the most trusting in organization,

followed the schools and the least trusting being local government and political parties. We

would like to forward here that although general organizational is very low in Jamaica, we need

to contextualize this finding. Using the European Values Survey, the average interpersonal trust

in Europe is 30.7% (i.e. 3 out of 10 persons trust each other), compared to that in Belarus (41.9%

or 4 out of 10 person), Ukraine (27.2%, that is, 3 out of 10), Lithuania (23.7% or 2 out of 10),

Russia (23.7%, 2 out of 10) and that in Poland (18.9%, or 2 out of 10 persons). Even though this

is not organizational trust, people will not trust institutions more than how they trust themselves

or others.   Hence, using interpersonal trust in Europe we now know that the level of

organizational trust in Jamaica, despite it being low, is highly comparable with like in the rest of

the world.


       It is, therefore, not surprising that there is a credibility issue for the distrusting

organizations, and the difficulty with which they must execute their tasks coupled with the

uncooperative atmosphere between themselves and people. Organization trust is not a simple

phenomenon as it builds cooperation, tolerance, productivity, production, lower unit and

transactional cost and strengthens harmonious relationship (Fukuyama, 1995). With the high

levels of distrust in Jamaica, the high degree of crime and violence are also fostering and

deepening this distrust. People are not tolerant of each other. And people believe that the

intentions, motives and purpose of others is to do them harm. Hence, at the first act of another

they will retaliation in self - defense and preservation. A factor that this study identified within

the model is justice (or injustice), and the fact that there is an inverse association between the


                                                 93
administration of justice favouring the rich and organizational distrust, which further our claim

of self defense instead of through the courts or by the police. Powell, Bourne, & Waller’s work

(2007), find that the police are the third least trusting institution in Jamaica, with the judiciary

being the fifth least trusting organization. With this reality, self-protection, crime and violence

are preferred alternatives to (1) reporting a matter to the police, (2) taking an issue to court, (3)

adhering to the dictates of judiciary, (4) ‘buying’ into a vision of change and socioeconomic

advancement from political parties as there is a credibility issue from past performance, (5)

seeing institutions as having ‘good’ intents or motives, and (6) interpreting actions from

organizations are equally beneficial to all.


       The researcher recommend, within what obtains, that a study be done on ‘trust

development in Jamaica’ as it holds the answer for many of the current sociopolitical dilemmas

in the society. Like the literature outlined, we believe that organizational trust (or distrust)

explains the crux of the matter on social cooperation and the low social capital in the society.

Hence, the restoration of trust is pivotal to the establishment tolerance, cooperation, democracy,

civility, credibility, confidence, and forgiveness. Embedded in organizational trust, here, is the

personal aspect to this. A personal variable that we found did not relation to organizational trust

was wellbeing (p value > 0.05). It means here that Jamaicans will not trust organizations

because of a change in their personal wellbeing, but it will be based on other conditions.


       Self trust (or interpersonal trust) is positively associated with organizational trust. As

such, when people have a low personal trust, interpersonal trust is low and so does organizational

trust. The implications are extensive as people interpret other people’s motives, and intents and

credibility based on their self-trust. It goes beyond interpretations to actions of others. A

number of companies’ executives continuously have to transact business with other companies’

                                                 94
executives in different transactions, and the process becomes highly complex when there is no

self-test and this is even intensive when there is an issue of credibility. The process is expanded

when there is no trust; and this increases transactional costs (Fukuyama, 1995), lower

production, and increases frustration. Hence, this explains why high trust companies outperform

low trust organization. Companies that are in a high trust milieu create a ‘good’ working

environment, which encourages friendly competitions. Then, in this discussion so far we have

not addresses the restoring trust when it has been lost. We will avoid examining this aspect

because there is no study within our geographic space that has investigated trust development

and building.


       The findings of this research concur with the literature that there is a high distrust for

political parties. In the study carried out by Tang (2005), the researcher identified that a positive

statistical relation exists between political party involvement and trust, which was concurred on

by this study. In this study we found that an individual is 1.1 times more likely to trust an

organization, if he/she becomes more involved in political activities. Based on the findings of

this research, we have found that no statistical association exists between trust and gender, trust

and age group. However, this was not the case in the literature (in particular China). We will

note here for Boxill and colleague’s work (2007), they found a statistical relation between

interpersonal trust and age, but this was not the case for this study as the dependent variable was

organizational trust and not interpersonal trust. However, in this study we disagreed with Tang

(2005) that interpersonal trust is associated with corporate (or organizational trust). Here, we

found that not only a positive relation between the two aforementioned variables but that

organizational trust will increase by approximately by 1.5 times, if an individual reported that

he/she trust other persons. Furthermore, we examine whether trust in government is associated


                                                 95
with corporate (or organizational) trust and we found that a person who trust the government is 2

times more trusting in an organization. On the issue of trust and area of residence, Boxill et al

study revealed that a statistical association exists between parish of residence and trust in

particular interpersonal trust, we our findings noted that this is also the case for organizational

trust.


         In concluding, companies’ executives are stewards, which are not only assessed based on

profitability but on transparency and accountability, thereby fostering resourcefulness, and

creating dividends for sustainability. These are accomplished whenever people trust an

organization. This becomes even stronger when there is transparency, as it is a byproduct of

reputation. Trust fosters heightened loyalty for the company’s and its brands, and any perceive

question of credibility due to corruption or disingenuousness means reduced trusting of the

institution. On the other hand, if people are able to trust the organization and its product, it [the

company] is able to build partnership, deepens collaborations, increase sales, productivity and

profitability (Fukuyama, 1995). This improved collaboration is attained through cooperation. As

we have found that credibility, which can be measured by way of corruption and perception of

justice influence organizational trusted, distrust disconnects the people from the institution.


         High trusting companies are able to execute their policies than low trusting companies

because people will allow them to do so. As people will be supportive of the policies and

programmes of institutions that have a strong reputation, transparency, honesty, credibility,

delivers services and product on times based on their promises, clarify their expectations,

responsibility and accountability. A human resource personnel needs to understand that an

organization is a family, and families are organizations. People will adhere and follow

organizational objectives and mandate because they are confident with their credibility, past

                                                 96
performance and intent of the institutions, which is the collective conscience of commitment.

Embedded in high trust organizations are easy with which we share information, allow others to

make mistakes, high loyalty, transparency and accountability are important, people are authentic

and people feel a sense of positive expectation for each other.


       An organization that holds everything together is using trust as the company’s experience

goes beyond the operational apparatuses, tutelage and mission statement. Achieving an

organizational goal and mission are carried out by civic commitment of employers, customers,

and external publics. It should be noted that what holds all of this together is the ‘social glue’

called trust. Trust, therefore, is the core of human relationships, and like human relationships, the

organization is a likened to a family with different individuals, systems and structures that must

come together as a single unit for the holistic nature of the common good. This can only be

attained through cooperation, civic engagement, confidence, positive expectation, which are all

within the purview of trust. Once gains, while we do not claim to provide all the answer with

this single static study, it will be used assist future research in the area as nothing exists on the

topic at the moment.


       Human resource practitioners, policy makers and general public need to be cognizant that

interpersonal distrust, distrust in government and related institutions dates back as earlier as to

slavery, and that any cooperation between the publics and organizations must be done within the

context of trust as the level of distrust is increasing and it is not expected to be lowered in any

time soon. Many factors affect trust in socio-political institutions, and so trust building must be

driven by our current knowledge of trust (or distrust). With the low organizational confidence

(which is used as a synonym for trust throughout this work) that the nation is now undergoing,

this explains why some company are faced with lawsuits, sabotage, grievances, militant

                                                 97
stakeholders, unhealthy working environment, unhappy working environment, intense socio-

political environment, excessive time wasted due to bureaucracy and defending positions and

decisions, slow approvals of issues, and unnecessary hierarchy as many companies seek to

protect themselves against distrusting employees, the public and other stakeholders. The costs of

dishonesty, fraud, corruption and deception are enormous; and further add to the cost of doing

business in a society (in terms of profit/bottom-line). While companies must survive within these

milieus, institutions need to understand that they need to aid people, employees and stakeholders

through these challenging times as they can generate trust by their actions throughout the society.

Organizations are, therefore, built on trust and not on force. As a result, it is imperative that their

intent reflect motives, mission and principles that will build trust.




                                                  98
Reference

Almond, G.A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five

       nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Anand, S., & Ravallion, M. (1993). Human development in poor countries: On the role of

     private incomes and public services. Journal of Economic Perspective, 7:133-150.

Baier, A. (1986). Trust and A antitrust. Ethics, 96: 231-260.

Becker, G.S., Philipson, T.J., & Soares, R.R. (2004). The quantity and quality of life and the

     evolution of world inequality. Retrieved on August 22, 2009 from

     http://www.spc.uchicago.edu/prc/pdfs/becker05.pdf.

Blind, P. K. (2007,). Building trust in government in the twenty-first century: Review of

    literature and emerging issues. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Seventh Global

    Forum on Reinventing government Building trust in government, Vienna, Austria.

Blinder, A. S. (2000).Central Bank credibility: Why Do We Care? How Do We Build It? The

    American Economic Review, 90, 5: 1421-1431.

Bourne, P.A., & Beckford, O.W., Duncan, N.C. (2010). Generalized trust in an English-Speaking

     Caribbean nation. Current Research Journal of Social Sciences 2, 1: 24-36.

Bourne, P.A., (2010). Crime, tourism and trust in Jamaica. Current Research Journal in

     Social Sciences 2,2:69-83.

Boxill, I., Lewis, B., Rusell, R., Bailey, A., Waller, L., James, C., Martin, P., & Gibbs, L. (2007).

       Political Culture of Democracy in Jamaica. United States: The United States Agency for

       International Development.

Covey, S. M.R., & Merrill, R.R. (2006). The speed of trust: The one thing that changes

     everything. New York: Free Press.

Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2: 265-279.
                                                 99
Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In: Nebraska Symposium

    on motivation: 275-320.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective Wellbeing: The Science of Happiness and a Proposal for a

    National Index. American Psychological Association, 55:34-43.

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective wellbeing. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3):542-575.

Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social subjective indicators.

   Social Indicators Research 40: 189-216.

Dogan, M. (2002). Dissatisfaction and distrust in West European democracies. European

       Review 10:91-114.

Duck, S. (1997). The Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and Interventions.

       New York: Wiley.

Easterlin, R., A. (2003). Building a better theory of wellbeing. Prepared for presentation at

    the Conference “Paradoxes of Happiness in Economics”, University of Milano-Bicocca,

    March 21-23, 2003. Retrieved on August 26. 2006, from

    http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~easterl/papers/BetterTheory.pdf.

Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust. The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York:

    Free Press.

Gambetta, D. (1988). Can we trust trust? In D. Gambetta (ed.). Trust: Making and breaking

      cooperative relationships: 213-237. Cambridge, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Gaspart, F. (1998). Objective measures of wellbeing and the cooperation production

     problem. Social Choice and Welfare, 15, (1): 95-112.



                                               100
Hardin, T. (1993). The street-level epistemology of trust. Politics & Society, 21:505-529.

Inglehart, R. (1999). “Trust, Wellbeing and Democracy,” In Democracy and Trust. ed.

    Mark E. Warren. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jamaica Information Service, JIS. (2003). Inaugural address by the Hon. Portia Lucretia

       Simpson-Miller, MP, Prime Minister of Jamaica. In Waller, L., Bourne, P., Minto, I., &

       Rapley, J. (2007). A landscape assessment of political corruption in Jamaica. Kingston:

       CAPRI      Taking     Responsibility.   Retrieved     on    October     1,   2006,     from

       http://www.jis.gov.jm/PMspeeches/html/20060331T120000

James, H.S. Jr., & Sykuta, M.E. (2004, October). Generalized and Particularized Trust in

    Organization. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the International Society for New

     Institutional Economics meetings in Tucsan, Arizona, USA.

Kramer, R.M. & Taylor, T.R. (1995). Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research.

     Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage

Kuhn, T.S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolution, 3nd ed. Chicago: University of

    Chicago.

Lewicki, R.J., Tomlinson, E.C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust

     development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions.

     Journal of Management, 32: 991-1022.

Lewicki, R.J., & Stevenson, M.A. (1998). Trust development in negotiation: Proposed actions

     and a research agenda. Journal of Business and professional Ethics, 16, 1-3: 99-132.

Markόczy, L. (2003). Trust but verify: Distinguishing distrust from vigilance. Retrieved on

    April 22, 2008, from http://www.goldmark.org/livia/papers/socint/socint.pdf.

Miller, A. H. (1974). “Political Issues and Trust in Government, 1964-1970,” American Political



                                               101
    Science Review 68, 3: 951-972.

Morgan, B. (2005). Trust, education and development in Jamaica, 1950 – 2000. Unpublished

    doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University.

Nye, J. (1997). Introduction: The Decline of confidence in Government. In Why People Don’t

    Trust Government? J. Nye, S. Joseph, P.D. Zelikow and DC King (eds.) Cambridge:

     Harvard University Press.

O’Neill, O. (2002). A question of trust. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved on March 2,

    2008, from http://assets.cambridge.org/97805215/29969/sample/9780521529969ws.pdf

Powell L.A., Bourne, P., & Waller, L. (2007). Probing Jamaica’s Political culture, Volume 1:

     Main trends in the July-August 2006 Leadership and Governance Survey. Kingston,

      Jamaica: Centre for Leadership and Governance.

Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton:

    Princeton University Press.

Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of

    Democracy, 6, 65-78.

Ringen, S. (1995). Wellbeing, measurement, and preferences. Scandinavian Sociological

    Association 38, 1: 3-15.


Seligson, M. (2002). “The Renaissance of Political Culture or the Renaissance of the

   Ecological Fallacy,” Comparative Politics, Vol. 34: 273-292.

Sen, A. (1982). Choice, Welfare and Measurement, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Sen, A. (1998). Mortality as an indicator of economic success and failure. Economic Journal
     108:1-25.

Stutzer, A., & Frey, Bruno S. (2003). Reported subjective wellbeing: A challenge for



                                              102
    economic theory and economic policy. Retrieved on August 31, 2006, from

    http://www.crema-research.ch/papers/2003-07.pdf


Tang, W. (2005). Public opinion and political change in China. Los Angeles: Standard

    University Press

Torney-Purta, J., Richardson, K.W., & Barber, C.H. (2004, August). Trust in

      government-related institutions and civic engagement among adolescents: Analysis of

      five countries from the IEA civic education study, Circle Working Paper, the Centre of

      Information and Research on Civic Engagement.

Uslaner, E.M. (2005). Trust and corruption. In global corruption report, 2005 Transparency

     International. London: Transparency International.

United Nations. (2007). Building Trust through Civic Engagement. New York,

    http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN028357.pdf


Waller, L., Bourne, P., Minto, I., & Rapley, J. (2007). A landscape assessment of political

       corruption in Jamaica. Kingston: CAPRI Taking Responsibility.

World Bank. (1997). World Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press.


Zak, P. J., & Knack, S. (2001). Trust and growth. Economic Journal, 111, 295-321.




                                             103
                                                                                           Chapter


                                                                                                  4


An examination of Generalized Trust in Jamaica: Using empirical data to model trust



     Introduction



     The perception of widespread corruption and mismanagement in sociopolitical institutions

in Jamaica (Waller, Bourne, Minto, & Rapley, 2007) coupled with the actions (or inactions) of

governments and other organizations have produced a society in which trust in government or

interpersonal trust is very low (Powell, Bourne, & Waller, 2007); and this is now affecting

different areas within the lives of the populace. But distrust is not fostered only by

mismanagement, graft, greed, misappropriation of funds, irregularities and police killings, but it

is culturally determined and there are variations in different cultures (Fukuyama, 1995). Religion

is one of the tenets within the culture of a people that produces low trust in institutions or in

other people. The major underpinnings in religion emphasize the importance of only trusting an

‘Almighty God’ and not simultaneously trusting men or the institutions they create. Furthermore,

the teaching of religion is not about interpersonal trust or trust in institutions, so low levels of

trust in human kind or their institutions by the highly religious should come as no surprise.

Morgan (2005) has shown that education is a predictor of generalized trust, and religious

teachings are one way of educating people. The common theology of the Christian religion

preaches a faith in God that should not coexist with faith in man. The stronger the faith in God

the less accommodating wills the belief system to the believer having faith in mankind or its

created institutions. This further explains the distrust of religious people. The theological trust


                                                104
in God is a bipolar opposite to interpersonal trust and a source in the development of lifelong

distrust. The issue of distrust is deep in the subculture of Jamaicans, but at the same time this

phenomenon substantially lacks empiricism. Distrust is not singly an interpersonal matter but it

is also commonly applied to government and other sociopolitical institutions, because of their

actions (or inactions).Thus, this paper examines religiosity (or frequency of visits to church

services outside of baptisms, christening, weddings, funerals or graduation) among other

variables as well as generalized trust in Jamaica. Thus, what are the tenets and scope of distrust

(or trust)? Like Hardin (2002) (in Morgan 2005), there is a difficulty in ascertaining the

composition of trust and this is primarily due to its definition. Hence, we are concern about trust

and its scope as well as what determines trust.


     Distrust is a behavioural tradition in many subcultures. Hence, the question ‘Whom shall I

trust?’ within the context of a wider society is popularized in freedom songs; by the media and in

King James’ version of the Holy Bible (Job 4:18; 2 Corinthians 1:9; Micah 7:5). In Micah 7

verse 5, the author wrote that “Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a guide…” This

has become a general sentiment for countless Jamaicans, and in other societies as far as

Bangladesh (Johansson-Stenman, O, Mahmud, M, and P. Martinsson, 2004). Thus, distrust is

not only a phenomenon in developing countries or for that matter Jamaica, but it is also a reality

in developed nations like Japan, Germany, and the United States (Blind, 2006; Transparency

International, 2007) to name a few nations.


     While trust is a necessary component for social capital and by extension development

(Morgan, 2005; Zack & Knack, 2001), it is a vital ingredient for accepting vulnerability (Baier,

1985) and all other kinds of abuses. Trust opens the giver to the mercy of the receiver. Simply

put, trust was the critical component upon which slavery was established, Nazi Germany was

                                                  105
started, Fidel Castro governs Cuba, Christians believe in God, infants depends on their mothers

to survive, patient care is served and accepted, and the list goes on. Despite the seeming

vulnerability that may arise due to trust, it fosters cooperation, social capital, civility, and

development (Putnam, 1993, 1995; Fukuyama, 1995; Zak & Knack, 2001; Beugelsdijk et al.,

2004); Transparency International 2005; Bohnet et al, 2005; United Nations, 2007).


     There have been many allegations, over the years by the public, that the Jamaican police

have been involved in corrupted practices, illegal shootings and killings, and other practices.

These practices have fostered the public’s distrust in this agency. The matter has become even

more complex when we include misconduct. But, for some time the police have been arguing

that the public’s assertions are inappropriate, incorrect and false. Recently, the Jamaican police

have produced a document which concurs with some of the allegations made by the public, and

the Jamaica Gleaner has published a perturbing event of corruption in the police force. The

aforementioned issues are displayed below:


     The Jamaica Constabulary has its fair share of problems with the perception and reality of
     corruption among its ranks. (Jamaica Constabulary Force, 2005:P. 1)



     The multimillion dollar car-stealing ring involving the police, which led to the
     disappearance of businessman Oliver Duncan, 35, and Kemar Walters, a 20-year –old
     mechanic apprentice, on December 23, 2004, began in the late 1990s, and continues today
     on a reduced scale (Jamaica Gleaner, 2008)



     Among the fundamental challenges that face poor nations like Jamaica are distrust,

corruption, personal graft, greed, low levels of detection of corrupt practices, state killings and

misconduct practice by state institutions, poverty and underdevelopment (Jamaica Gleaner,

2008; Waller, Bourne, Minto, & Rapley, 2007; Jamaica Constabulary Force, 2005). A study

                                               106
conducted by Powell, Bourne & Waller (2007) of some 1,300 respondents in a nationally

representative survey in Jamaica, found that 83.5% of surveyed population (n=1338) reported

that people cannot be trusted to keep their promises, 59.4% indicated that most people are not

essentially good and cannot be trusted, with 84.8% believing that the government cannot be

trusted. It is within this sociopolitical reality of distrust, corruption and state misconduct that is

the rationale for this study, which is ‘An examination of Generalized Trust in Jamaica.


       Corruption, distrust


       Corruption distorts the trust and public confidence (World Bank (1997) (in Waller et al.,

2007) that is a primary pillow for social capital. “The concept of social capital is defined by

Banuri et al., 1994, quoted in Charles 2002, it states that:


       Social capital inheres in the structure of relations between and among actors….. Unlike

physical capital that is wholly intangible and human capital that is embodied in the skills and

knowledge of an individual, social capital exists in the relation among persons. Most simply, it

may be defined as voluntary forms of social regulations.”


       Social capital is analyzed by de Vylder (1995) quoted in Charles 2002, “within the

context of the key institutions, norms, and mores that provide the bedrock for the strengthening

of society as a whole”. This is a functionalist look at society that requires the cooperation and

trust of its various institutions and individuals within them to ensure the harmonious working of

society. Within this context, the importance of trust as a main ingredient for societal harmony

and equilibrium can be justified.


       Grootaert (1998) quoted in Charles 2002 shows some indicators of social capital. These

are: Horizontal association - this list includes; Number and types of associations or local

                                                 107
institutions; Extent of membership; Extent of participatory decision making; Extent of kin

homogeneity within the association; Extent of trust in village members and household; Extent of

trust in government; Extent of trust in trade unions; Perception of extent of community

organization, and reliance on networks of support


       All these and other factors represent variables that are indicators of social capital. The

importance of trust as a catalyst for these indicators cannot be overstated. The proper functioning

of any collective will always depend on the level of trust existing among the members of the

collective. Community integration and effectiveness is dependent on trust among members of the

community as well as the trust that members of the community have in the structures of

government, law, and other institutions that are shared. Charles (2002) describes social capital as

the glue that binds society together. He further opines “that it represents the laws and regulations

of social interaction as well as respect for and willingness to obey these laws”.


       If a society lacks trust because of what ever socio-political conditions that exists therein,

the people are highly likely to suspicious of each other. Such a situation not only creates divides

between and among people but also fashions civil disobedience. These include protest, rebellion,

stick outs, strikes, road blocks, physical conflicts and development. In Waller et al.’s work, 87%

of Jamaicans reported that corruption is a hindrance to development. What is the relationship

between corruption and trust? Transparency International (2000) lists among the many tenets of

corruption – cronyism, illegal surveillance, election tampering, fraud, bribery of public sector

institutions, perversion of justice and tax evasion – which the public will interpret as injustice,

thereby resulting in them not trusting various social and political institutions. We will also

present a situation of corruption that may lead to distrust.



                                                 108
     In a text titled ‘Web of Deception: Misinformation on the Internet’, the editor notes that:


           Worse than that, even the press is being duped. According to the American
           Journalism Review (“The Real Computer” by Carl M. Cannon, May 2001), the
           mainstream press is beginning to publish stories with unchecked factoids that its staff
           found on the Internet that it accepted as facts. When journalists rely on unchecked
           information for source material republish[es] it in their own pieces, the erroneous
           information gets spread as fact (Mintz, 2002: xvii)



           The case presented by Mintz may seem to be misinformation but it is more of

deception than misinformation. If and when the public ascertain that this is the situation (vague)

that the media is presenting, this may spiral a massive distrust of other institutions. This may

result in the perception by the public that this is not only the practice of the media houses but all

organizations within the society. Why is this so? The media houses are not merely reporting

information to the populace, but the public trust their expert opinion on matters that they report

on. The acumen of a good media house is generally built on the trust that its listeners place in its

reporting on various issues. The public having invested its trust in such media houses, suspends

its own version of events in deference to that portrayed by the particular media. This is the power

of trust. Trust allows the individual to suspend his/her own rationality and defense for the

unproven truth claims of the trusted.


     Furthermore, Andvig (in Transparency International, 2005: 265), using businessmen,

shows how corruption and trust are used by businessmen in the execution of some transactions.

Andvig writes that businessman trust another actor in a situation of bribery if he/she stand to gain

from the event. Here trust must be reciprocated by the other party in this corrupt activity, which

is how Andvig displays the association between corruption and trust. But the other side to this

activity is the perception of the actors in not trusting the general system as they are cognizant


                                                109
that particular players may be seeking to gain by exploiting them. According to Khan (in United

Nations 2007),


       Public trust in institutions, especially in government is key to achieving the triangle of
       freedom - stability, peace and development- in each and every nation. Trust enhances
       confidence in institutions and consequently, attracts cooperation of citizens to the agreed
       policies and programmes of the governments (p. 13).




     If we accept the arguments of the United Nations that trust is imperative for cooperation,

social relations, all forms of development, confidence in social and political organizations, peace,

stability and clear the path for other relations, then with the high levels of distrust for

government and the low degree of interpersonal trust in Jamaica, the nations’ problems of

distrust which began with slavery, has now become a staple in homes communities, villages and

the wider society.


     Conceptual Framework


     Slavery was maintained because of the division created between the owners and the slaves.

A part of the slave’s implicit functions was to report on happenings within his community.

Slaves could manumit by reporting on planned insurrection by fellow slaves. While slave owners

built this type of cabal trust by offering incentives of freedom, it led to the breakdown of trust

among slaves. Slavery may have been the beginning of distrust of social institutions. Colonialism

with its imperialistic structures would have further exacerbated areas of distrust by the

forced/subtle compliance to things European, as well as the divide and rule tactics that left most

Caribbean democracy polarized with distrust peaking between the poles. Such a situation was

the building block for distrust among the different classes in Caribbean society. The people in


                                                110
Caribbean societies, therefore, like all other slave nations are not accustomed to trust each other

or the structures of government for that matter.         But from the works of Transparency

International (2000; 2005), without trust all societies are opened to boundless mis-cooperation,

corruption and social decay. Mis-cooperation and corruption have affected and still continue to

haunt the development of countries within the region.


     Among the many challenges of plantation societies are not only the distrust for government

(or the political structure) but also the low degree of social cooperation between people of the

same families, and the expansion of this among people outside of that boundary. One scholar

argues that within each culture, people within the same space usually trust each other more so

than those outside of this boundary (Fukuyama, 1995), which raises the question of ‘Whom

should I trust?’ beyond my space of family or associates. Hence, it should not be surprising that

there will always conflict between different races, ethno linguistic fractions within a nations or

world. Easterly & Levin (1997) observed why the organizational political trust (i.e. trust in

government) might be low, when they observed that differences in pro-growth policies and the

degree of ethnic diversity are reasons for distrust and could therefore be used to explain political

instability. Because minority groups which could include the poor are discriminated against by

the mega structure, interpersonal distrust develops for the majority groups as well as for

governments, which explains their low degree of trust (see Alesina & Ferrara, 2002).


       Johansson-Stenman, Mahmud, & Martinsson (2004) argue that trust must be studied in

Bangladesh because of the high levels of corruption within that society.           In 2007, many

developing societies such as Belize, Ecuador, Pakistan, Jamaica, Surname, Trinidad and Tobago,

Vietnam, Haiti and Somalia to name a few, suffer the same fate as Bangladesh, which is high

corruption (Transparency International, 2007).          Based on Transparency International’s

                                                111
Corruption Index, in 2007, Jamaica was given a grade of 3.3 out of 10, which meant that the

country was 84th out of 180 nations. The index ranges from 0 to 10, with 10 being the least

corrupt and 0 represents the most corrupt. Hence, corruption widens the gap of distrust.

Interpersonal relationship will change because of distrust, and this further lessens cooperation

between and among people and in the socio-political system affecting social and ultimately

development.


       Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Rastafarians, and Atheists are people who are product of a

culture. As such, they must interface with the same set of opportunities, corruptions, deception,

‘lip service by others and politicians’ and anti-poor policies, discrimination, inequalities and

unfairness. This would reduce their trust in other persons and the public institutions with time.

Trust is at the nexus of the relations between governments and their people. Organizational

political trust emanates from a socially-centered political institution that is reactive and capable

of articulating public needs through pro-poor policies and delivering necessary services in a

transparent and accountable way to all the citizenry. This synergy acts as a prerequisite for

‘good’ governance.


       However, the low levels of organizational political trust in Jamaica are not atypical but it

is increasingly becoming a significant issue on a global scale. This is influencing governments

in both developing and developed regions because of the issue with confidence in those societies.

A survey conducted by Powell, Bourne and Waller (2007) has established that interpersonal and

organizational political trust in Jamaica is very low. This has come as no surprise as the degree

of corruption in the society is high (Transparency International 2007) as well as ‘lip service’,

inequality, unfairness, poverty, socio-political misconduct, and injustice in judiciary and the



                                                112
administration of justice. Hence, based on the literature, it was expected that there would be a

positive association between trust, confidence in socio-political organizations and wellbeing.


       How is Trust Defined?


       What is trust? Trust is a situation of willingness for unguarded interface with someone or

something (which in this paper would be for social or political institutions).


According to Fukuyama (1995), trust is “the expectation that arises within a community of

regular, honest and cooperative behaviour based on commonly shared norms on the part of other

members of that society”. Embedded in the conceptualization of trust is the willingness to

cooperate with others without the initial reservation of disbelief or suspicion (Blind, 2007), with

the basic manifestation of confidence in other entities (see also Dogan, 2002; O’Neill, 2002).

Trust is, therefore, based on positive expectations, which is a psychological state (Rousseau et

al., 1998). Trust begins on the premise that fairness exists among the various parties. Hence,

trust is eroded over time, if one party’s expectation of fairness is not upheld. Thus, the lower

degree of trust of government by its citizenry can be explained by the low confidence in political

institutions brought about by corruption, deception, anti-poor policies, low transparency and

accountability in public governance (United Nations, 2007).


       Trust is categorized into two main areas, (1) interpersonal trust, and (2) organizational

trust (or political trust) (Kramer & Taylor, 1995; Duck, 1997; Blind, 2006). The latter refers to

citizenry’s trust (or distrust) in politicians and/or politics due to satisfaction or dissatisfaction

with credibility of the various agents and their policies (Miller, 1974). Organizational trust is

people’s belief in political actors (i.e. prime ministers, party presidents or leaders, and public

officials) and political institutions (such as parliament, judiciary, political parties, army, civil


                                                113
service) to provide policies and programmes that will benefit them and protect their rights

Organizational trust (i.e. political trust) is at the nexus of cooperation and a relationship between

citizenry and those who represent them, whereas interpersonal trust (or social trust) speaks to the

confidence, cooperation, and that is shared between or among people (Putnam, 1993, 1995).

‘Thy word is thy bond’ is a critical property upon which social and political trust is based within

various societies. There is another side to this discourse, as some degree of distrust stimulates

fewer persons participating in socio-political institutions.


       Boxill et al.’s work (2007), using linear regression modeling, found that age was positive

related to interpersonal trust and so was area of residence (i.e. rural area). Of the seven variables

used in the model (example, wealth, gender, area of residence, victimized by crime, corruption

by victimization, education, and age), only age and area of residence were statistically

significant. Whereas Boxill et al’s research used a nationally representative sample of some

1,595 Jamaicans ages 18 years and older (Boxill et al., 2007, p. 13); they did not utilize the

explanatory power of the regression model. Therefore, we cannot state how much of variance in

‘interpersonal trust’ is explained by age and area of residence.         From the standard ‘beta’

coefficients, age (β=0.140, ρ value=0.001) contributed more to the model that area of residence

(β=0.107, ρ value=0.001).


       Is there a relationship between trust and wellbeing, and what other factors? Catterberg,

and Moreno (2005), found a positive association between political trust, wellbeing, social capital,

democratic attitudes, political interest, and external efficacy. Thus, the current study examines

trust and religiosity in Jamaica; and trust and various socio-demographic conditions as well as

political participation, wellbeing, and confidence in socio-political institutions in an attempt to

compare different findings.

                                                 114
       The religious groups and the degree of religiosity of people cannot be separated from this

discourse as while religion has its own set of principles; fundamentally, people are by-products

of their culture. In a study conducted by Johansson-Stenman, Mahmud, & Martinsson (2004) in

Bangladesh, the authors found that distrust is high between the Muslims and the Hindus. The

distrust that is happening in Bangladesh is not atypical as this is also the case between the

Palestinians and the Israelis, which explains the continuous low development of Palestine due to

wars. Interestingly, Alesina & Ferrara (2002) found that low trust and trustworthiness in public

institution (in particular politics) by different religious sects also explain interpersonal distrust

brought about by corruption.


       Method and Data


       A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted by the Centre of Leadership and

Governance (CLGS), the University of the West Indies at Mona, during July and August 2006 to

collect data on the political culture of Jamaicans along with their psychosocial state. Thus, a

nationally representative sample of 1, 338 people from the 14 parishes of Jamaica were

interviewed with a 166-item questionnaire. The questionnaire constitutes questions on civic

culture and orientation to democracy, generalized trust which constitutes the following core

variables - interpersonal trust, institutional trust - and confidence, perception of wellbeing, crime

and corruption, and political participation as well as the standard demographic variables. Data

were collected and stored using the Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Dummy

variables were created from some demographic and some other variables – sex, race, religiosity,

area of residence, generalized trust, unemployed person, perceived social class and justice.

Wellbeing and political participation were computed from a number of scale questions.

Descriptive statistics were done to provide background information on the sample; tests were

                                                115
done for Cronbach alpha to examine the reliability of the construct – i.e. wellbeing and political

participation. Then, logistic regression was used to build a model. A goodness of fit statistics

was done for on the model.


Operational definitions


Sex. Sex is the biological makeup of males and females. This is a binary measure, where
1=male and 0=female.



Religiosity. This is the frequency with which an individual attends church outside of christening,
baptism, wedding, funeral, or other special occasions.

     Religiosity1 11     1=higher religiosity       0=other

     Religiosity2 12     1=moderate religiosity 0=other

Reference: Lower religiosity



Race. Race is people’s perception of their ethnical background.

Race1         1=Caucasian (or white)

Race2         1=Black and mixed

Reference: Other ethnicities such as Chinese, Indians



Area of residence. This means the geographic location of one’s place of abode It is a dummy
variable, 1=St. Andrew, Kingston and St. Catherine, 0=Other 13




11
   Religiosity1 refers to high religiosity which means attending church more than once per week
12
   Religiosity2 implies to moderate religiosity which denotes attending church between once per week and once
per fortnight
13
   Others constitute St. Thomas, Portland, St. Mary, St. Ann, Trelawny, St. James, Hanover, St. Elizabeth,
Westmoreland, Manchester, and Clarendon.

                                                      116
Trust in government. From the survey questionnaire that reads ‘Would you say most persons in
the Jamaican government can be trusted to keep their promises, or that you can never be too
careful in dealing with people in government’, was then dummy to 1 if can be trusted and 0 if
otherwise.



Interpersonal Trust. The survey instrument asked the question ‘Generally speaking would you
say that most people are essentially good and can be trusted, or that most people are not
essentially good and cannot be trusted. The variable was then dummied, 1 if most people
essential good and can be trusted, 0 if otherwise.



Generalized Trust (i.e. Organizational political trust and interpersonal trust). General trust
was computed from interpersonal trust and trust in government. The variable was computed by 1
if the person had answered can trust other person or the government, 0 if otherwise.

Wellbeing Index. W = ΣQ i where Q i is the selected value from each ladder of Maslow’s
Hierarchy of Need, with equal weight given to each response and each option (i.e. ladder). The
Cronbach α=0.762 for the 5-item variables, which are used to constitute this Index. Why is
Moslow’s hierarchy used to measure wellbeing. As development studies have shifted its focus
from purely an economic pursuit to a multi-disciplinary approach, so has wellbeing moved away
from economic determinism to a multi-dimensional conceptualization. Within the neoteric scope
since 2000, motivation is a ‘good’ measure of why individuals do things; needs and satisfaction
are, therefore, multi-dimensional coverage of subjective wellbeing as it tenets are very broad.
Thus, subjective psychosocial wellbeing, for this study, include (1) self-reported state of health,
basic (physiological) needs; recognition (affiliation) needs; self-fulfillment (achievement) needs;
and the need for love and affection. Each question is a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 10, where
0 denotes lowest need-satisfaction to 10 being the highest. Thus, the W index is interpreted as
from 0 to 3.9 is low; 4.0 to 6.9 is moderate; 7.0 to 8.9 is high and 9.0 to 10 is very high.



Age. Age is the total number of years which have elapsed since birth (Demographic Statistics,
2005. This is a continuous variable, which is in years



Unemployed. Individuals who reported that they are not working, self-employed or seasonally
employed. This is a dummy variable, 1 if yes, and 0 if no.




                                               117
Political Participation Index, ‘PPI’. Based on Trevor Munroe’s work, ‘political participation’
“...the extent to which citizens use their rights, such as the right to protest, the right of free
speech, the right to vote, to influence or to get involved in political activity” (Munroe, 2002:4),
We use the construct forwarded by Munroe to formulate a PPI = Σb i , b i ≥ 0. The b i represents
each response to a question on political behaviour - this constitutes a summative 19-item scale,
such as voting, involvement in protest (see extended list in Appendix I); and 0≤PPI≤19, with a
Cronbach α for the 19-item scale is 0.76.



Perceived Social class. People’s perception of their social standing (or position) in the society.

socialcl1      1=middle, 0=other

socialcl2      1=upper, 0=other

reference: lower class



Confidence in sociopolitical institutions. This is the summation of 22 likert scale questions,
with each question on a scale of (4) a lot of confidence, (3) some confidence, (2) a little
confidence, to (1) no confidence. The heading that precedes the question reads: I am going to
read to you a list of major groups and institutions in our society. For each, tell me how much
CONFIDENCE you have in that group or institution.



Confidence index = summation of 22 items, with each question being weighted equally; and
0≤confidence index≤88, with a Cronbach α for the 22-item scale being 0.896. The higher the
scores, the more people have confidence in sociopolitical institutions within the society. Thus,
the confidence index is interpreted as from 0 to 34 represents very little confidence; 35 to 61 is
low confidence; 62 to 78 is moderate confidence and 79 to 88 is most confidence.




Justice. Justice relates to fairness and operational functioning of the political institutions, and
how people believe that this favours all or the few affluent within the society. This is a dummy
variable, 1=administration of justice favours rich, 0=other.




                                                 118
       Results of findings.



       A total of 1,338 respondents were interviewed for the study. Approximately 56% are

females (n=723) compared to 44.3% males (n=574), with a response rate of 96.7%. The average

age of the sample is 35 years ± 14 years. Substantially more of the sample classify themselves as

being a part of the lower perceived social class (59.0%, n=766), 36.6% are of the middle class

(n=476) compared to 4.4% who are in the upper class (n=57). The findings reveal that most of

the respondents have attained the secondary level education (69.0%, n=892), 26.2% (n=339)

have acquired post-secondary training, 3.1% (n=40) primary or preparatory level education

compared to 1.5% have no formal education whatsoever. The results show that Trelawny is the

parish with the least number of interviewees, 3.8% (n=50), with the other areas of residence

showing a similar percentage of respondents (i.e. 7 - 8%). Another demographic variable of

importance to this research is ethnicity/race, 90.0% of the interviewed are Blacks and Browns,

with 8.0% being Whites (or Caucasians) compared to 2.0% who indicate Others such as Chinese,

Indians, and Other races.


    Of the 1,338 respondents, the mean age for men (35.76 ± 13.7 yrs: range 16-85) is more

than the sample mean age (34.95 ± 13.6) and less than the mean age for women (34.33 ± 13.4).

Some 96.2% of the sample population was of working age (15 to 64 years), and 3.8% were older

than 65 years (i.e. elderly). Disaggregating the age group by gender revealed that 44.5% (n=531)

of the working age group is males compared to 55.8% (n=662) females. With respect to the

elderly, however, 53.2% (25) are men with 46.8% (22) being women. In general women in the

study were more educated than their male counterparts, though they received less mean income.




                                              119
   The results found in sampled respondents show that on an average Jamaicans have low

confidences in sociopolitical institutions (mean of 57 out of 88 ± 11). When this general finding

was disaggregated by gender, we found that there is no statistical difference between how men

and women view sociopolitical institutions (ρ value = 0.083> 0.05).             (Table 1).    More

examination of the confidence in sociopolitical institutions reveals some interest findings. Some

3.1% of the sample (n=1,289) had a very low confidence in sociopolitical institutions, 64.9%

with a low confidence, and 2.3% with moderate confidence and the remainder had the most

confidence in sociopolitical institution. Although there was no statistical association between

confidence and gender, we found that 4% of the male sampled (n=568) had a very low

confidence’ compared to 2.4% of the females of the female sampled population (n=721). On the

other hand, males were 1.1 times more likely to have a moderate confidence in sociopolitical

institutions compared to their female counterparts, with 31.2% and 28.6% respectively. At the

highest degree of confidence in sociopolitical institutions, men were 1.5 times likely to report the

most confidence’ in comparison to their female counterparts – 2.8% and 1.9% respectively.


   Generally Jamaicans have a lower interpersonal trust than organizational political trust,

which is 8.0% and 37.3% respectively. Decomposing the general findings reveal that men are

more trusting than women (see Table 1, 4, 5, below. This may be somewhat surprising to some

people. The construction of masculinity involves matching skills in various team games as a

show of machismo. Men have historically had to rely on each other more than women had to rely

on each other. Men not only played more team sports, but they also have to trust their squad

member in the heat of battle. These areas of interpersonal relation would have built the trust

component of men.




                                                120
       Women on the other hand, have been and still are subjected to exploitation by men as

well as social institutions. The ideology of patriarchy supports the continued domination and

exploitation of women. This ideology is supported by all the major social institutions in society.

As the proverbial weaker sex in the conjugal relationship, women are the most likely to be

exploited and hurt both emotionally and physically. This would have nurtured a spirit of distrust

of both man and institutions. According to Mackinnon (1992) quoted in Mohammed and Rowley

2005, “sexuality is the locus of male power and that men distinctive power over women in

society arises from the pervasiveness of male sexual violence against women”. Mackinnon went

on to add that “sexuality itself has been constructed in such a way as to not only ensure male

dominance and female submission, but also to present female submission to the male as being

pleasurable, desirable, and to be sought. This perceived dominance of women by men would no

doubt result in a general distrust of men by women. The fact that institutions allowed this type of

exploitation to continue for so long would only serve to reinforce greater distrust by women of

social institutions. The length of this oppression of women by men and institutions is borne out

in one of the tenets of radical feminist theory; women were historically, the first oppressed group

(Mohammed & Rowley 2005).


       The biblical history of the holy bible recorded in Genesis showed how God severely

punished the woman and indirectly credited her with the fall of early man from God’s grace.

While the man was punished to eating bread by the sweat of his brow, the woman was sentence

to have children through pain. The woman’s punishment seems relatively harsher than that of the

man. To compound the issue, the man also blamed the woman for his fall and she in turn had to

move out of the realm of mankind to blame the serpent. If we are to believe the history of the

bible as true history, then oppression of the woman started long ago and continues to this very


                                               121
day. The construction of feminism through socialization of the girl would involve the mother

passing on the harsh lessons learnt from society and the need for the daughter to continue the

high level of distrust if she is to survive and maintain a defense mechanism.


      When Generalized Trust was compute (which constitutes interpersonal or trust in

government), 4.5% of Jamaicans indicate a Generalized Trust (i.e. 5 out of 100 Jamaican trust

the government or other persons). Of the 4.5% of Jamaicans who trust the government or other

persons, males do twice more trust of government and in each other (i.e. 6.3%) than females

(3%)? (See Table 5). This result was confirmed by the logistic regression where males were

approximately twice more trusting of each other and of government than females Exp (B) =1.98

(See Table 4). The explanation here could be that men are generally the ones at the upper

echelon of most of the institutions in society. The way how the males have handled the economy,

government and other social institutions would affect the female’s trust of these institutions. The

level of emotional distrust that a woman develops due to unfaithful relationships, disappointment

in children, spouse, society and other areas of significance to her would have fuelled her distrust

over time. Leadership in organizations has not been favourable to women relative to men. This

could also affect how females view organizations and social institutions.


    The increase in female headed households points to an absence of men with whom the

woman can build and develop some level of trust.


   Another interesting finding of this paper is that on average Jamaicans’ political participation

is very low (i.e. 4 out of 17), with political participation for men (4.6±3.9) greater than that for

females (3.6 ± 3.5).


                                    (Insert Table 1 above here)


                                                122
      Religion and religiosity are substantially dominated by females. Based on Table 2, twice
the number of males has never gone to church services compared to the number of females -
females (31.0%), and male (19.4%). In excess of 50% of females attend church services at least
once per week, with males’ attendance for the corresponding event being 35.5%. Thus, there is a
gender disparity in religiosity in Jamaica (χ2 (7) =60.93, ρ-value=0.001).           Furthermore,
approximately 5% of the variance in religiosity can be explained by gender.




                                   (Insert Table 2 above here)




Results of the Multivariate Model




       In addition to the description of explanatory powers of the model, a discussion of

adequacy of adopted model is necessary. Before we can discuss the model, we need to address

the scope and adequacy of the model. Thus, we will commence this section with the goodness of

fit of the model; the classification table was used to compare the predicated to the observed

outcomes. (See Table 3).}


                                   (Insert Table 3 above here)




     Before we are able to report on the findings of the multivariate model, we will evaluate

whether or not the model fits the data. “The Classification of Table” was used to compare the

predicted to the observed outcomes.        Table 3 reveals that forty-three respondents were

                                               123
incorrectly classified - 42 who ‘cannot be too careful’ to trust and 1 who did not. Overall, 95.7%

of the 991 respondents were correctly classified - 8.7% of those with ‘composite trust’ and

99.9% of those who ‘cannot be too careful’ to trust people.                 We will now proceed with

forwarding a model with the purpose of ascertain the factors can predict Generalized Trust in

Jamaica. Hence, we will test the hypothesis that certain predisposed factors are a function of

Generalized Trust in Jamaica. These are forwarded below:




Predicting Generalized Trust from various primary conditions



We tested the function:



                             T i =ƒ (R i , E i , RAi , PPIi , S i , SSi , Xi , Ci, Wi, A i , J i, Zi) …………[1]




where T i is Generalized Trust of person i; Ri is religiosity of person i; education of individual i,
E i ; RA i denotes race of individual; PPIi means political participation index of individual i; S i is
sex of individual i; SS i represents self-reported social class of individual i; Xi indicates
employment status of person i; Ci , is the confidence level of person i; Wi is wellbeing of person
i; A i - age of person i; J i this is justice of person I, area of residence, Zi of person i.




       Of the twelve primary predisposed factors in eqn [1], four came out to be significant

predictors of trust (ρ-value< 0.05). Based on the principle parsimonious conditions, given that

the non-statistically significant variables do not contribute to the model, the final model will be

specified one that only has those factors that contribute to the explanation of the dependent

variable, trust in Jamaica. Thus, the simplified model is as follows:
                                                   124
                                        T i =ƒ (R i , Ci Ji, Si)……………………………[2]




        Generalized Trust (i.e. organizational political trust and interpersonal trust) is a function

of religiosity, confidence in socio-political institutions in the country, justice in administration

and sex of the individual. The overall model (i.e. Eqn [2]) can explain 23.5% (Nagelkerke R

Square = 0.235, -2 Log likelihood is 296.7, Chi-square (44) = 75.62, ρ-value < 0.001) of the

variance in organizational political trust or interpersonal trust.




        Generally, equation 2 creates a delusion that each variable presented therein is totally

related and is a cause of organizational political trust or interpersonal trust. However, further

examination of the logistic regression in Table 4 revealed that the association is between those

who attend church at least once per month with reference to those who indicated none and trust.

An individual who attends church frequently (i.e. high religiosity) is approximately 0.3 times

(Exp (B) = 03; Wald = 4.768, ρ-value < 0.05) less likely to trust government and other persons

than someone who has never attended church (this excludes attending church for special

occasions such as baptism, weddings, funerals, graduations, christenings et cetera). Embedded

in the of types of religiosity is that those people with the most church attendance do not trust the

government or other people more than those who have never attended religious services expect

for weddings, funerals, christenings, and baptisms. Furthermore, with regard to those who attend

church services less than once per month, these individuals do not trust government or others

more or less than another person who has never done so except for the special circumstances that

were mentioned earlier. It should be noted that religiosity is a positive predictor of Generalized

Trust (i.e. organizational political trust or interpersonal trust)

                                                  125
        The greater the degree of confidence that someone has in socio-political institutions in a

country the more he/she will trust government or other people (B=1.154). The higher the extent

of ‘confidence in socio-political organizations’ in the Jamaican society, the odds of trusting

government or someone else will be 3 times more likely than if the individual has a lower degree

of confidence in the socio-political institutions within the nation. (Exp (B) =3.172; Wald=9.857,

ρ-value < 0.01).


        This result is also not surprising. Politics in the Caribbean and in particularly Jamaica

affects almost every sphere of human existence. Many reasons could be offered for this

phenomenon. Our small geographic size along with our meager resources influences the need for

a dependence on the polity for survival by a large section of the population. This influences

negative political behaviours such as clientelism, nepotism and corruption. Those who benefit

from the system disproportionately to the rest of the population would manifest more trust in

such institutions. This would also in turn influence their perception of other social institutions.

The major benefactors would, no doubt, be in a better position to exercise trust, given their

socio-economic situation as a result of benefiting from the political system. This would influence

their perception of trust in other areas of life.


        Based on the logistic regression model, it was revealed that justice is associated with

Generalized Trust (ρ-value < 0.05). Furthermore, based on Table 4, the coefficients for justice

and interpersonal or trust in government was (B= -1.228; Wald=12.404, ρ-value < 0.05) which

means that the association between the two variables are inversely related and significant. In

addition to direction of the relationship between the previous mentioned variables, the statistics

also reveal that an individual who reported that justice system in Jamaica favours all is 0.29

times less likely to trust government or trust some people.

                                                    126
        With regard to Generalized Trust and gender, men are approximately 2 times (Exp (B) =

1.983) more trusting than their female counterparts (B= .685; Wald=3.885, ρ-value < 0.05).


        Using the Wald statistic test, justice (Wald = 12.404) is the most significant predictor of

Generalized Trust, followed by confidence in socio-political institutions (Wald=9.857),

religiosity (Wald=4.768) and sex (Wald=3.885). Thus, using eqn [2], the predicative model for

this study is fitted by:


        Log (pi/1-pi) = β 0 + β 1 Confidence in socio-political institutions + β 2 Religiosity4 +
                         β 3 Justice + β 4 Sex                    [3]

        where pi is the probability of trust for model one; β i parameters estimates of confidence

in social and political institutions, religiosity (once per month), justice, and sex (being male)


Log {pi/1-pi} = -4.978 -1.228 + 1.154 + 0.685 – 1.191,



Therefore, pi = 0.51.



        Thus, with a probability of 0.51, it follows that confidence in socio-political institutions

in Jamaica, high religiosity, justice and sex are predictors of trust in government or interpersonal

trust in Jamaica. Although race is not a predictor of Generalized Trust in Jamaica, there is an

association between ethnicity (or race) and Generalized Trust (Table 6). Based on the findings,

Blacks (or African Jamaicans) were the least trusting of each other or trust in government (i.e.

Generalized Trust), followed by those who classified themselves as mixed (i.e. Brown). (see

Table 6).


                                            (insert Table 6 here)



                                                 127
        When a bivariate relationship was done between race and Generalized Trust, an

association was found. However, so strong was the intervening effect that it removed the

explanatory power from race, which initially had a weak effect on Generalized trust (the

coefficient of determination shows that race explains approximately 2% of the variance in

General trust)


        Limitation of the Model


        The initial Model (Ti =ƒ (R i , Ci , Ji, Si ) assumes that trust is continuous over time. But

the dataset from which the Model is derived is at a static ‘snapshot’ moment in time and this

does not take into consideration different time intervals. Trust is fluid. Therefore, any measure

of this construct must include the fact that trust is continuously changing over the life time of

trustor (the decision maker) or trustee (receiver of the trust); and this may even change over short

periods of time. Hence, we must make a modification to the initial model to include time

intervals, t, as an important factor:


        Ti =ƒ (R i , Ci , J i , Si, t)


        Discussion and Conclusion


        Some people may argue that the establishment of Caribbean societies was based on the

premise of distrust, misinformation, deception and abuse of some races, people and cultures.

Although this paper is not geared toward an historical framework of transition from Indians to

Spanish to English within the geographical space of Caribbean territory, that period in our

history may explain aspects of the present distrust in authority and for each other The structure of

society then and today has created many of the distrust of the masses, which is a tailored position

for people to distrust the public sphere and other institutions.

                                                 128
       It appears that corruption lowers people trust in public sphere as it creates a culture of

distrust in others and the structures due to unfairness, inequalities, and injustices (see for

example Uslaner, 2007). This means that the bond between various groups in a society is based

on trust without a group of researchers, using multivariate regression, found that people who are

richer are more trusting as well as the well-educated, and that married couples are more trusting

than their non-married counterparts. Their findings also reveal that males are marginally more

trusting than females, with church attendees trusting each other more compared to non-church

attendants (e.g. Glaeser, Laibson, Scheinkman & Soutter, 1999). Zak & Knack (2001) say that

interpersonal trust influence economic growth, through increased transactional cost of

investment. Trust is not only personal but it is retardation to development


       An important finding of this paper is the negative relationship between high income and

trust. This finding emphasizes the distrust between the people of the greatest income and the

poor, and governance. In addition to that, the findings reveal that highly religious Jamaicans do

not trust more as compared to those with low religiosity.          However those who are more

trustworthy are people who attend church at least once a month, with reference to those who do

not attend except for special occasions. This may appear odd that highly religious people are less

trusting compared to those who attend church less but such a situation can be explained by what

is embedded in the principles, practices and epistemology on religion. Among the emphasis of

religion is the fact that you should not put your trust in men (Micah 7:5; Job 4:18) or in yourself

(2 Corinthians 1:9; Philippians 3:4). The rationale put forward for this low trust is that we

cannot put our confidence in the flesh (or humans) because such a standpoint opens one to

disappointment due to the high likeliness of failure in it. Another important issue that arises as a

critical explanation of this position is encapsulated in fact that the ‘Bible’ projects an image that


                                                129
the earth is not the home of Christians, and so they should not put their trust in the things of this

world. An explanation of this seeming paradox is the fact that trusting other person is sharing

ones trust in God. Hence, interpersonal trust or organization trust is not offering ‘God’ all our

heart, and so you would be following the commands of God. This study did not concur with the

findings of other studies with regard to the following variables – (1) richer people are more

trusting; (2) well-educated person are more trusting; (3) men are slightly more trusting than

women; (4) married people are more trusting.


       Some of the reasons for the distrust in Jamaica like many other developing nations are

hopeless of the citizenry, the ‘lip services’ played by governments to the needs of the people,

corruptions, low confidence in socio-political institutions, fear, skepticism, poverty, escalating

conflicts, and inequality. The current study has shown that men are marginally more trusting

than females, but that gender is not a determinant of trust in Jamaican context. The issue of trust

in Jamaica is important as the cost of corruption and the different kinds of distrusts are retarding

the nation’s social capital as well as all forms of development. Thus, understanding trust is

unveiling knowledge of certainty over future development. We may want to change the distrust

in Jamaica but like Uslaner (2002), we believe that trust is embedded in the culture and so for

this to change we must address early socialization. Among the important finding of this study is

the direct association between confidence in sociopolitical institution and general trust.         It

follows that if people are less confidence in sociopolitical institution, they will have less

Generalized Trust. The world of people will remain the same and cannot be modify due to desire

for change as trust is ingrained in the psyche of the people and become difficult to change. Trust

is not constant. It is a shaped through life’s experiences, and so if provide profound challenges

to change if it becomes distrust.


                                                130
       In summing, all the predisposed variables that were selected and utilized in this model

were chosen primarily because they found to be statistically significant variables based on the

literature. This reality aided the researchers in selecting all the variables for the current study

that were used in building the predictive model. Hence, we were not expecting that any of the

identified factors would not be significant. We do not believe that this study provides all the

answers on trust (or factors that affect trust), and so we would like to see future research that (1)

use the quasi-experimentation method and examine the             trust levels of a panel cohort of

respondents over a period of same a year, (2) examine trust in the police force, and

simultaneously ascertain the factors that determine trust in this institution, (3) a comparative

study on trust in different Caribbean nations; (4) examine the effect of trust on profitability and

migration, and (5) evaluate the role of slavery on trust (or distrust) in Caribbean societies.




                                                 131
References




Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2002). Who trusts others? Journal of Public

       Economics, 85, 207-234.

Baier, A. (1985). Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96, 231-260.

Banuri, T., G. Hayden, C. Juma and M. Rivera (1994). Sustainable human development. From
Concept to operation: A guide for practitioner, UNDP Discussion Paper. In     A.   Charles,
(2002). Topics in Economic Development (pp.84). Bridgetown: UWIDEC Publication.

Barr, A., (2004). Kinship, familiarity, and trust: an experimental investigation. In

Henrich, J. R., Boyd, S., Bowles, C., Camerer, E., Fehr, E. & Gintis, H. (Eds.):

       Foundations of Human Sociality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bellemare, C. & Kroger, S. (2003). On Representative Trust, Center Discussion Paper     Series
No. 2003-47

Berg, J., Dickhaut, & J., McCabe, K., (1995). Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History,

       Games and Economic Behaviour, 10, 122-42.

Bertrand, M. & Mullainathan, S., (2001). Do People Mean What They Say?

       Implications for Subjective Survey Data, American Economic Review. Papers

       and Proceedings, 91, 67-72.

Beugelsdijk, S., Groot, H.L.F., de Schaik, A.B.T.M. van, (2004). Trust and economic

       growth: A robustness analysis. Oxford Economic Papers 56, 118-134.

Blind, P. K. (2007, June). Building trust in government in the twenty-first century:
       Review of literature and emerging issues. Symposium conducted at the meeting of
       the Seventh Global Forum on Reinventing government Building trust in government,
Vienna, Austria.

Bohnet, I., Harmgart, H., Huck, S. & Tyran, J.R., (2005). Learning trust, Journal of

       the European Economic Association, forthcoming.

Bouckaert, J. & Dhaene, G. (2004). Inter-Ethnic Trust and Reciprocity: Results of an

                                                132
       Experiment with Small Businessmen, European Journal of Political Economy

       20, 869-86.

Boxill, I., Lewis, B., Rusell, R., Bailey, A., Waller, L., James, C., Martin, P., & Gibbs, L.
        (2007). Political Culture of Democracy in Jamaica: 2006. Vanderbilt University.

Buchan, N. & Croson, R (.2004). The boundaries of trust: own and others’ actions in

       the US and China, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 55, 485-

       504.

Buchan, N., E. Johnson & Croson, R.(2004)., Getting to know you: an international

       experiment of the influence of culture, communication, and social distance on

       trust and trustworthiness, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization,

       forthcoming.

Burns, J., (2004). Rebuilding trust in post-apartheid South Africa, Mimeo, University of

       Cape Town.

Camerer, C., (2003). Behavioural Game Theory: Experiments on Strategic Interaction,

       Princeton University Press.

Cardenas, J.C. & Carpenter, J. (2004). Experimental Development Economics: A

       Review of the literature and ideas for future research, mimeo.

Catterberg, G.,& Moreno, A. (2005). The Individual Bases of Political Trust: Trends in New
       and Established Democracies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research,
       http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/edh081v1

Cox, J, (2004). How to identify trust and reciprocity, Games and Economic Behaviour

       46, 260-281

Duck, S. (1997). The Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and Interventions.
New York: Wiley.

Dufwenberg, M. & Muren, A, (2005). Generosity, Anonymity, Gender, Journal of

       Economic Behaviour and Organization, forthcoming.



                                              133
Dogan, M. 2002. Dissatisfaction and distrust in West European democracies. European Review
      10:91-114.

Easterly, W. & Levine,R.(1997). Africa’s growth tragedy: policies and ethnic

       divisions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 1203-1250.

Eckel, C. C. & Wilson, R.K.(2004)., Is trust a risky decision? Journal of Economic

       Behaviour and Organization 55, 447-65.

Encyclopaedia of Psychology, (2000)., (Eds) Alan E Kazdin, Oxford University Press.

Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., von Rosenbladt, B., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G.G.(2002), A
      Nation-Wide Laboratory: Examining Trust and Trustworthiness by Integrating

       Behavioural Experiments into Representative Surveys, Schmollers Jahrbuch

       122, 519-542.

Fershtman, C. & Gneezy, U.( 2001)., Discrimination in a segmented society”

       Quarterly Journal of Economics 116, 351-77.

Fershtman, C., Gneezy, U., & Verboven, F.(2002). Discrimination and Nepotism: The

       Efficiency of the Anonymity Rule, mimeo.

Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust. New York: Free Press.

Glaeser, E., Laibson, D., Scheinkman, J. A., & Soutter, C.L. (1999). What Is Social Capital?
       The Determinants Of Trust And Trustworthiness. Working Paper 7216. MA: National
       Bureau Of Economic Research, http://www.nber.org/papers/w7216

Glaeser, E. L., Laibson,D.I. Scheinkman, J.A., & Soutter,C.L.(2000).        Measuring       Trust,
       Quarterly Journal of Economics 115, 811-846.

Grootaert, C. (1998). Social capital the missing link? Social capital initiative. Working   paper
No. 3. In A. Charles, (2002). Topics in Economic Development (pp.87). Bridgetown:
UWIDEC Publication.

Hardin, R. (2004). Distrust. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. In Morgan, B. (2005). Trust,
       education and development in Jamaica, 1950 – 2000. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
       Case Western Reserve University.

Jamaica Constabulary Force. (2005). Anti-Corruption Strategy. “Confronting Corruption”.
       Kingston: Professional Standards Branch, Jamaica Constabulary Force.

                                               134
Jamaica Gleaner. (February 10, 2008). Policemen back auto-theft ring, vol. 69(6). Kingston:
       Jamaica Gleaner.

Kramer, R.M. & Taylor, T.R.. (1995). Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and
      Research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage

Miller, A. H. (1974). “Political Issues and Trust in Government, 1964-1970,” American Political
        Science Review 68, 3: 951-972.

Mintz, A. P. (2002). Web of Deception: Misinformation on the Internet. New Jersey: Thomas H.
       Hogan, Snr.

MacKinnon, C. (1992). Feminism, Marxism, methods and the State: An agenda for theory.
      Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 7(2). In Mohammed, P. and Rowley,
      M, Feminist Theorizing: The Connection Between Theory and Practice. Kingston: UWI

Morgan, B. (2005). Trust, education and development in Jamaica, 1950 – 2000. Unpublished
      doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University.

O’Neill, O. (2002). A question of trust. Cambridge University Press. Retrieve March 2,
       2008fromhttp://assets.cambridge.org/97805215/29969/sample/9780521529969ws.pdf

Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton:
      Princeton University Press.

Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of
      Democracy, 6, 65-78.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A
      cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review 23:393-404.

Transparency International. (2000). Transparency International Annual

       Report. Berlin: Transparency International.

Transparency International. (2003). Transparency International Corruption Perception

       Index 2003 Press Release. Retrieve March 2,

       2008 fromhttp://www.transparency.org

Transparency International, (2004). Transparency International Corruption Perception

       Index 2004, Press Release. , Retrieved March 2,2008http://www.transparency.org




                                              135
Transparency International, (2005). Global Corruption Report 2005. London. Pluto Press.
      Retrieved March 5, 2008 from
      http://www.transparentnost.org.yu/dokumenti/GCR2005.pdf

Transparency International, (2007). Global Corruption Report 2005. London. Pluto Press.,
      Retrieved March 5, 2008 from
      http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi.

United     Nations. (2007). Building Trust through Civic Engagement. New                   York,
         http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN028357.pdf

Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The Moral Foundations of Trust. New York: Cambridge University

         Press. Quoted in Uslaner, E. M. 2007. Corruption and the inequality trap in Africa.
         Afrobarameter Working Paper No. 69. Cape Town: ADASA POS. Retrieved March 5,
         2008 from http://www.afrobarometer.org/papers/AfropaperNo69.pdf

Uslaner, E. M. (2007). Corruption and the inequality trap in Africa. Afrobarameter Working
       Paper No. 69. Cape Town: ADASA POS. Retrieved March 5, 2008 from
       http://www.afrobarometer.org/papers/AfropaperNo69.pdf

Waller, L., Bourne, P., Minto, I.& Rapley, J.. (2007). A landscape assessment of corruption in
       Jamaica. Kingston: Capri.

Willinger, M., Keser, C., Lohmann, C. & Usunier J.C. (2003)., A comparison of trust and
reciprocity between France and Germany: Experimental investigation

         based on the investment game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 447-466.

World Bank. (1997). World Development Report. New York: Oxford University

         Press. In Waller, L., Bourne, P., Minto, I. & J. Rapley. (2007). A landscape assessment
         of corruption in Jamaica. Kingston: Capri.

Zak, P. J., & Knack, S.(2001). Trust and growth. Economic Journal, 111, 295-321.




                                               136
Table 1. Demographic Variables of Respondents, by Gender

       Variable                      % (N)                                    ρ-value

                                  Male (574)               Female (723)

Confidence                        56.7±11.8                   56.2 ±10.8       0.083

Political participation           4.6 ± 3.9                   3.6 ± 3.5        0.001

Subjective wellbeing              6.9 ± 1.8                   6.8 ± 1.7        0.338

Age                              35.8 ± 13.7                  34.3 ± 13.4      0.591

Generalized Trust                         0.005
           No                      93.7(519)                   97.0(672)
           Yes                      6.3(35)                     3.0(21)
Interpersonal trust                                                            0.608
           No                      62.0(341)                   63.4(430)
           Yes                      38.0(209)                   36.6(248)
Trust in government                                                            0.005
           No                      89.5(476)                   93.7(626)
           Yes                      10.5(56)                    6.3(42)
Unemployed                                                                     0.020
           No                      90.0(515)                   85.8(614)
           Yes                      10.0(57)                    14.2(102)
Church Attendance                                                              0.008
           No                        5.4(30)                      2.5(18)
           Yes                      94.6(528)                    97.5(695)
Occupation                                                                     >0.05
           Lower (tradesmen)         70.7(366)                    70.1(459)
           Professional             29.3(152)                    29.9(196)
Educational level                                                              0.173
    No formal                          2.0 (11)                1.2 (8)
    Primary                            3.8 (21)                2.6 (18)
    Secondary                        51.7 (289)                49.6 (344)
    Post secondary                   19.0 (106)                18.4 (127)
    University                       23.7 (132)                28.2 (195)
Social class                                                                   0.655
  Working                            59.8 (336)              58.7 (409)
   Middle                            35.2 (198)              37.2 (259)
   Upper                               5.0 (28)              4.2 (29)
Income-mean               $37,499.50 ±$21,299.75    $31,249.50±$18,964.21       0.05

Source: Author’s Compilation


                                              137
Table 2. Religiosity, by Gender
                                                     Gender        Total
                                                 Male    Female
         Religiosit More than      Count
                                                   108      221      329
         y:         once per
                                                 19.4%    31.0%    25.9%
                    week
                  Once per week    Count             90     147      237
                                                 16.1%    20.6%    18.6%
                  Once per       Count               25       42       67
                  fortnight                       4.5%     5.9%     5.3%
                  Once per month Count               53       49     102
                                                  9.5%     6.9%     8.0%
                  Several times    Count           113      149      262
                  per year                       20.3%    20.9%    20.6%
                  Once or twice    Count             91       65     156
                  per year                       16.3%     9.1%    12.3%
                  Less than once   Count             48       22       70
                  per year                        8.6%     3.1%     5.5%
                  Never            Count             30       18       48
                                                  5.4%     2.5%     3.8%

Total                                              558      713      1271

χ2 (7) =60.93, ρ-value=0.001
Source: Author’s compilation




                                           138
Table 3. Classification Table for Generalized Trust Model:
                                                                  Predicted

                                                      Cannot                    Percentage
                                                      be too      General        Correct
                                                      careful      Trust


                                Cannot be too
                                                          944               1         99.9
                                careful
Observed



                                Generalized Trust            42             4          8.7




                                       Overall Percentage                             95.7
Source: Author’s compilation




                                                139
Table 4. Logistic Regression – Estimates for Trust, N=991
                             B       S.E.     Wald     df         Sig.      Exp(B    95.0% C.I.for
                                                                                        EXP(B)
                                                                                    Lower Upper
Step     Area_Res              .701      .373    3.542       1    .060      2.016     .971   4.184
1(a)
         Religiosity1        -1.191      .545    4.768       1    .029       .304     .104    .885
         Religiosity2         -.374      .409     .835       1    .361       .688     .309   1.534
         Reference:
         (Low)
         Wellbeing             .021      .030     .521       1    .470      1.022     .964   1.083
         Employed             -.781      .474    2.713       1    .100       .458     .181   1.160
         Unemployed          -1.240      .744    2.779       1    .095       .289     .067   1.244
         Reference:
         (Other)
         Secondary            -.515      .666     .598       1    .439       .597     .162   2.205
         Tertiary             -.543      .686     .627       1    .428       .581     .151   2.227
         Reference:
         (below
         secondary)
         Race1               -2.487     1.309    3.610       1    .057       .083     .006   1.082
         Race2                -.739      .799     .856       1    .355       .477     .100   2.286
         Reference:
         (Chinese, etc)
         Political             .037      .044     .683       1    .409      1.037     .951   1.131
         Participation
         Sex                   .685      .347    3.885       1    .049      1.983    1.004   3.917
         socialcl1            -.215      .367     .343       1    .558       .807     .393   1.656
         socialcl2            -.054      .740     .005       1    .942       .948     .222   4.046
         Reference:
         (Lower)
         Confidence           1.154      .368    9.857       1    .002      3.172    1.543   6.520
         Index
         Justice             -1.228      .349 12.404         1    .000       .293     .148    .580
         Age                   .014      .012  1.310         1    .252      1.014     .990   1.039
         Constant            -4.978     1.860  7.161         1    .007       .007
Note:
1.     B-     Parameter estimate
2.     S.E. - Standard error
3.     Wald - Test statistics
4.     df- degree of freedom
5.     Exp (B) -       Odds ratio
6.     The statistical significant predictors are highlighted at 5% level
Source: Author’s compilation



                                                140
Table 5(i): Generalized Trust (Interpersonal Trust and Trust in Government), by Gender
                                              Gender             Total
                                          Male      Female


                                           519        672       1191
             No                          93.7%      97.0%      95.5%

General
Trust


                                             35         21         56
             Yes                          6.3%       3.0%       4.5%


                                            554        693      1247
Total

χ2(1)=7.8, ρvalue=0.01< 0.05




                                             141
Table 6: Generalized Trust (Interpersonal and Trust in Government), by Racial (or ethnicity)

                                               Racial Background (or Ethnicity)


                              African,     Indian     Chinese,   European,     Mixed       Other
                               Black                  Oriental    White

                                  1016          23          2             6         169            3
              No                 96.4%      82.1%       66.7%         85.7%       94.4%        75.0%


Generalized
Trust

              Yes                     38        5           1             1           10           1
                                   3.6%     17.9%       33.3%         14.3%        5.6%        25.0%




Total                            1054          28           3           7           179            4
   • χ2 (5) =25.9, ρ value = 0.001< 0.05, contingency coefficient=14.1%




                                              142
Appendix I



Political participation constitutes the summation of the following issues:



      Did you voted in the last general elections?
      Have you ever joined a political party?
      Worked for a party or a candidate in an election?
      Attended a political meeting or an election rally?
      Attempted to persuade other to vote?
      Written a letter to a newspaper on a political issue?
      Phoned in to contribute your comments to a radio or television talk show, on political
       issues?
      Contributed your comments to an internet “blog: on a political issue?
      Personally sent a letter or message of protest, or support, to a political leader?
      Contacted a local governmental official or politician, to seek help with a personal
       problem you or your family had?
      Contacted a central governmental official or politician, on some general community
       problem?
      Contacted a central governmental official or politician, to seek held with a personal
       problem you or your family had?
      Contacted a local governmental official or politician, to seek help on some general
       community problem?
      Signed a petition?
      Blocked traffic in protest?
      Participated in an organized ‘strike’?
      Participated in an organized ‘boycott’?
      Participated in a peaceful march or public demonstration?
      Were you enumerated to vote when the last national elections were held for Parliament
       back in December 2002?




                                                143
Appendix II
Confidence in sociopolitical institutions
I am going to read to you a list of major groups and institutions in our society. For each, tell me
how much CONFIDENCE you have in that group or institution. For each, do you have …..?
    (5) NO CONFIDENCE
    (6) A LITTLE CONFIDENCE
    (7) SOME CONFIDENCE
    (8) A LOT OF CONFIDENCE

       Q121. “Police” ……………
       Q12 2 .Would you say you have a lot, some a little or no confidence in “trade
       union”
       Q123.in “political in parties”…
       Q124.in “churches”
       Q125.”large companies or corporation”
       Q126.”Government”
       Q127.school”
       Q128.”families”
       Q129.”Universities”
       Q130.”Private sector”
       Q131.”Bank”
       Q132.”Prime minister”
       Q133.”Judiciary Courts”
       Q134.”Armed forces”
       Q135.”Parliament”
       Q136.”Governor General
       Q137.”Local government council”
       Q138.”News paper”
       Q139”television’
       Q140.radio”
       Q141.the people national party - PNP”
       Q142.”The Jamaica labour party - JLP

        Source: Taken from a questionnaire in the work of Powell, Bourne, & Waller (2007, pp.
        122-124).




                                                144
Acknowledgement



The authors are indebted to a number of intelligentsia who took the time from their busy
schedule to read and give advice on the initial drafts of this paper. We would like to single out
Professor of political philosophy Dr. Rupert Lewis of the department of government, the
University of the West Indies at Mona, Jamaica; and Assistant Professor of psychology Dr.
Brigitte Matthies of the College of Natural and Social Sciences, California State University, Los
Angeles, US. In addition to the aforementioned individuals, we would like to take this
opportunity to say that we are thankful for the Centre of Leadership and Governance (Centre),
department of Government, the University of the West Indies at Mona, for allowing us to utilize
the data from which this study is derived and in the same instance we would like to say that any
error in this paper is not as a result of Centre but that of the authors.




                                              145
                                                                                         Chapter


                                                                                                5




Modeling Political Trust in Jamaica




       Introduction: Background



       Jamaica is not atypical in the high levels of corruption (see Transparency International,

1999-2007) nor is it surprising that there is a low degree of public trust in government (Powell,

Bourne, & Waller, 2007) – 8 out of 100 people trust the government. One of the measures that

can be used as an approximation for the public’s distrust in government is the increasingly

decline in voting behaviour in elections (Boxill, et al., 2007; Munroe, 1999, 2002; Stone, 1974)

and the increase in unconventional political participation over the last one-half decade. Within

the context of those aforementioned issues, we will be examining the factors that account for this

reality as well as the extent of trust (or distrust) for government and interpersonal in Jamaica

from an econometric perspective. And so we will seek to build a model that explains people’s

trust in government. But, does corruption affects trust?




       2006 was marked by a storm of corporate corruption scandals that hit the world’s largest
       exporting country, Germany, particularly hard. Automaker Volkswagen, the German
       branch of the Swedish furniture outlet IKEA and the engineering group Siemens were all
       caught up in allegations of corruption, with several bribery prosecutions. Other firms
       were in the spotlight as well, including the Chinese industrial equipment-maker Shanghai
       Electric Group Co., whose chairman was investigated following allegations of

                                               146
        corruption, and Dutch electronics manufacturer Phillips, accused by a Hamburg
        prosecutor of bribing retailers. (Transparency International, TI, 2006, p.4)



        …public trust in institutions, especially the police, is central to an effective anti-
        corruption System (TI, 2005, p.230)



        Corruption is one of the many contributing factors to the level of distrust in a society,

organization or nation (see Fukuyama, 1995; Covey, & Merrill, 2006; TI, 2005; Uslaner, 2005).

It lowers development, increase costs, foster bureaucracy and retards social capital. Corruption

breaths crime (for example, bribery, misappropriation of funds, extortion, threats, treason, fraud,

murder), and crimes foster silence, lowers integrity in the system and further intensifies distrust

as people’s confidence in other’s (or institution) credibility, intent, motive, and honesty are

always questioned because ‘positive expectations’ are not built from corruption. Nor is character

build in this milieu as it is the hallmark of a dysfunctional system. Such milieu produce

dysfunctional relationships; confrontations; defensive posture; legal positioning; label of others

as informants; verbal, emotional and physiological abuses, guarded monologues, doubts of

reliability, questionable commitment, militant stakeholders, low cooperation and hidden agendas.

Ergo, in this milieu trust is thrown through the window and the aforementioned characteristics

replace it.


        Corruption has been plaguing developing countries such as Nigeria, Kenya, Zimbabwe,

Angola, Chad, New Guinea, Sudan, Uganda and Somalia (i.e. the most corruption nation in the

world in 2006 – TI) for some time now. And this is not specialized to African nations as the

issue as spread across the globe to include Latin America and Caribbean nations like Haiti,

Jamaica, Guyana, Guatemala, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Trinidad and


                                               147
Tobago to name a few countries as well as nations in Europe, Asia, Middle Eastern countries and

in the Americas - Belarus, Bulgaria, Italy, United States, Korea, Germany, United Kingdom,

Iraq, Japan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, and China. According to

Transparency International reports (1999-2007), countries like Haiti (placed 177th out of 180

countries- TI, 2006) and Jamaica (i.e. the country is ranked 86th out of 180 nations in 2006 by TI;

and in 2003 the nation was ranked 57th of 133 countries) are experiencing increased corruption.

TI’s report has shown that corruption is increasing in some countries in particular to Jamaica.

This is not limited to politicians, drug cartels or dons but this has terminated across the entire

public and private sectors as well as private citizenry.


       Recently the Police Commissioner of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF), Rear

Admiral Hardley Lewin, has accused the members under his charge of being corrupt, and he

went further to say that there are criminals in the JCF. The matter of criminals being in the force

suggest that individuals who have been convicted of criminal activities are still working in the

institution, but if this is so it suggest the extent of corruption within that organization. The

Commissioner of police argument may be concurred with by the unprecedented number of

arrests that have been made against police officers since 2007. This is not atypical to Jamaica, as

in another Caribbean (Cayman Islands), some senior police officers are currently charged for

corruption. Nevertheless, the issue of corruption goes beyond the police force as a Jamaican

politician has being sentenced in jailed for his involvement in corruption (Mr. JAG Smith). It

has been revealed that private individuals have been arrested for their involvement in ‘stealing

electricity and tampering with the National Water Commission meter system’ in an effort to

lower their expenditure. Then there is another matter of extortion that has become pervasive in




                                                 148
the Jamaican societies over the last 5 years. But, how widespread is the issue of corruption in the

society?


        Transparency International’s corruption index has shown an increasing trend in the area

of corruption in Jamaica; and some people argue that this is absurd and a fabrication of the

reality. A national representative cross-sectional sample survey conducted by Waller, Bourne,

Minto, & Rapley (2007, pp.14-15) of some 1,140 Jamaicans 16-year and older found that five-

most perceived corrupt institutions in the nation are the police force (8 out of 10 people)

followed by parish council (6 out of 10 people), customs (6 out of 10 Jamaicans), central

government (5 out of 10 people), and public works (approximately 5 out of 10 people). In the

same study, when Jamaicans were asked ‘How easy is it for corruption to be detected in the

Jamaican public sector?’ 71% of them reported that it was difficult to detect, with 21% indicated

that this was very difficult to detect. To follow people’s perception of matters relating to

corruption and its punishment, the researchers asked the question ‘How likely is it that the

corrupt individuals will be punished for their actions?’ 56% of Jamaicans indicated that it was

not likely for corrupt individuals to be caught and punished. But, does perceived corruption

affect trust?


        Francis Fukuyama, Stephen Covey and Rebecca Merrill, and Eric Uslaner are few of the

scholar that are argued that low accountability, lack of transparency, and corruption are all tenets

of corruption. Although Fukuyama (1995), and Covey, & Merrill (2006) works were not based

on sample survey research data, the works were years of observations, personal experiences and

other qualitative approaches that allow them to write those materials. Eric Uslaner’s work (2005,

p.262) titled “Trust and Corruption”, on the other hand, was based on sample survey research

data (i.e. World Values Surveys – 47 countries), and he found that there was a strong

                                                149
reciprocated relation between trust and corruption (simple correlation 0.724). Another scholar,

using a sample survey methodology of some 1,338 Jamaicans a cross-sectional national survey

found that corruption does affect trust, but that the negative association was a weak one as it

being the seventh factor of 8 - (Wald statistic = 4.691, Exp(B) = 0.634, 95%CI: 0.420 to 0.868).

(Bourne, 2008). Using logistic regression to model ‘trust in organizations’ Bourne identified that

the perceived ‘administration of justice’ in nation is most significant predictor of the

aforementioned trust (Wald statistic = 13.5, Exp(B) = 0.496, 95%CI: 0.342 to 0.722).


       We have now established that corruption (using either Transparency International’s

operational definition – Uslaner - or perception – Waller, et al.’s work) influences trust; and

based on the level of perceived corruption in government in Jamaica (being it parish council or

central government), people confidence in those institutions will be low. A study conducted by

Powell, Bourne, & Waller (2007, p.26), using a sample survey research methodology of over 1,

300 Jamaicans, they found that 7 out of 100 people trust the government. Although the distrust

in government is very low in Jamaica, a nationally representative sample survey research of

some 1,557 18 years and older Americans were interviewed by NPR, the Harvard Kennedy

School of government and Kaiser Family Foundation (2000), they found that 4 out of 10 people

trust the local government and the same was reported for the state compared to 3 out of 10 for

the federal government (also see, GALLUP, 2008; Jones, 2007).            Based on the American

National Election Studies, in 1966, reported that the trust in federal government was 6 out of 10

people, which means that trust in federal government has been reduced by one-half in 33 years.

Hence, the issue of distrust extends beyond geopolitical borders.


       There are scholarships that have shown that trust is a crucible factor in social capital (see

for example Hibbing, & Theiss-Moore, 2002; Uslaner, 2002; Levi & Stoker, 2000), and if

                                               150
corruption is inversely related to trust, and corruption is widespread in Jamaica (Transparency

International 1997-2007; Waller, et al. 2007), then social capital will undoubtedly be low

(Fukuyama, 1995; Boxill et al. 2007; United Nations, 2007), distrust will be high, crimes and

victimization will be high, and productivity and production will equally be affected because of

the low social capital (Covey, & Merrill, 2006; Fukuyama, 1995). Jamaica is not atypical in the

high levels of corruption (see Transparency International, 1990-2007) nor is it surprising of the

low degree of public trust in government. One of the measures that can be used as an

approximation for the public’s distrust in government is the continuous decline in voting

behaviour in general elections (Munroe, 1999, 2002; Boxill, et al. 2007; Stone, 1974) and the

increase in unconventional political participation over the last century.


       Corruption is not the only yardstick that is used by the public to assess their confidence in

sociopolitical institutions (Espinal & Hartlyn, 2006; Hazan, 2006), but there are many other

components. Among those things are past performance (or the lack of), lack of integrity and

honesty, credibility issues, wastage and inefficiency, cynicism, ‘suspicion of politician and

dons’, competence, and matter of misappropriation of public funds. In addition to those issues

mentioned earlier, the World Values Survey identified another factor, which is recent political

transition (Klingemann, 1999; also see Espinal & Hartlyn, 2006). Within the context of those

aforementioned issues, we will examine the factors that account for this reality as well as the

extent of trust (or distrust) for government and interpersonal in Jamaica from a quantitative

perspective. Thus, this leads us to the next crux of this paper, what is trust and trust in

government? Confidence in political institutions is not limited to corruption, and so we will seek

to build a model that explains people’s trust in government.


       Conceptual Framework

                                                151
        “People want to be trusted. They respond to trust. They thrive on trust” (Covey, &

Merrill, 2006, p.29). What is trust? And does trustfulness indicates gullibility? Or should

trustfulness correspond to vigilance. The issue of trust and gullibility are important in the study

of social capital, profitability, productivity, democracy, and according to Francis Fukuyama it

[trust] holds a society together. Some people believe that in order to trust one must ‘blindly’

believe in the credibility, intent, motive and words of another.        Such a position indicates

gullibility, and not trust. Trusting individuals are not necessarily gullible, but some scholars

argued that gullibility, vulnerability and trust go hand in hand (Jones, 1996; Schlenker, Helm, &

Tedeschi, 1973; Webster 1913).        One scholarship has found that a positive relation exists

between trust, gullibility and a tendency for conformity (Garske, 1976). This goes to the crux of

the perception that some people in spite of information that shows the rationale for them not to

trust will trust (Schlenker, Helm, & Tedeschi, 1973).


        Contrary to the aforementioned scholarships, gullibility does not correspond to trust or

trustfulness. Whereas some level of vulnerability is needed prior to the establishment of trust or

trustfulness, it does not imply gullibility. A group of researchers write that people can be

watchful while being trusting (Yamagishi, Kikuchi, & Kosugi, 1999). Another study concurs

with other works that trustful people are not gullible; Rotter finds that “high trusters are no more

gullible than low trusters” (1980, p.4). The debate so far has excluded an important element, the

definition of trust. What is trust?


        According to Covey, & Merrill, “simply put, trust means confidence” (2006, p. 5; also

see Berman, 1997; La Porte & Metlay, 1996; Lipset & Schneider, 1987). Covey & Merrill

opines, “[And] the opposite of trust-distrust is suspicion” (2006, p. 5). Such a conceptual

definition implies that low confidence means distrust and that suspicion is an indicator of distrust

                                                152
and that this is a ‘good’ proxy for distrust. This also implies that there is a trust continuum, and

that to the one extreme there is trust and to the other surcease is distrust. But is trust that simple?

Covey & Merrill did not imply that their definition was simply, they declare that it is. Trust is

not confidence, but what is does is to enhance confidence and thereby fosters cooperation from

people (United Nations, 2007).


       Within the purview of a complex man, no social construction of trust can claim to be

simple or be merely simple to capture the multidimensional aspect to humans.


       Trust is the expectation that arises within a community of regular, honest, and
       cooperative behavior, based on commonly shared norms, on the part of other members of
       that community. Those norms can be about deep “value” questions like the nature of God
       or justice, but they also encompass secular norms like professional standards and codes of
       behavior. That is, we trust a doctor not to do us deliberate injury because we expect him
       or her to live by the Hippocratic oath and the standards of the medical profession
       (Fukuyama, 1995, p.26)



       Like Covey, & Merrill, Fukuyama believes that confidence is an ingredient in a

discussion on trust. Whereas Covey, & Merrill cease to with a simple conceptual definition of

trust, Fukuyama went further and was all-inclusive his definition. He incorporates positive

expectations, to include cooperation, honesty, shared values. Another scholar’s definition of

trust like that of Fukuyama identified positive expectation as an element of trust as well as

results. ”Trust occurs when parties holding certain favorable perceptions of each other allow this

relationship to reach the expected outcomes” (Wheeless and Grotz 1977, p. 251). Although

Francis Fukuyama expanded the construct of trust, he also eludes to the unidimensional approach

its conceptualization.




                                                 153
        Covey, & Merrill and Fukuyama see trust on a continuum; and so they use low trust and

trust to indicate their view of trust on this continuum. Embedded in Francis Fukuyama’s

construct is confidence (or low trust) along with the other modifications – honesty, cooperation,

and expectations. The expectation that drives trust is positive expectation, and ergo negative

expectation explains low trust, which goes back to the issue of confidence. Such a trust is

interpersonal trust, which could extend to organization and when interpersonal trust is coalesced

with organizational trust it is referred to as behavioural trust.




        People do trust within some context, and this context is past experience, expectation, past

performance, credibility, honesty, intent and motives of the trustor. All of this is operating under

the guise of vigilance. Vigilance is some general awareness that each individual is not

necessarily trustworthy; and so, some degree of caution is used in relations. Here we are

emphasizing the importance of information that makes us cognizant of the likely opportunistic

behaviour others. Gurtman, & Lion (1982) helps us to understand that vigilant people seems to

have a lower threshold in recognizing stimuli that can be used to identify opportunism. Hence,

the opposite of vigilance is gullibility, and according to Rotter “believing another person when

there [is] some clear-cut evidence that the person should not be believed” (1967, p.4). It should

be pointed out here that be vigilant and using information to informed decision does not

constitute suspicion or distrustfulness (see for example, Kramer, 1999). When trust is based on

information, it is called rational trust.


        Although Covey, & Merrill’s conceptual definition of trust (2006) was simple, their work

covered competence, credibility, intention, expectation, motives, honesty, past performance,

transparency and accountability. Hence, the work was from a behavioural perspective. It is clear

                                                  154
from Covey & Merrill and Fukuyama that rational trust is within the broader area of behavioural

trust. As it is from information that credibility will be adjudged and so will expectation, motives,

past performance, motive, honesty, transparency and accountability will be established by the

trustee (i.e. the individual who is receiving). Hence, one attitude on an event, a person, or an

organization is guided by some information, which is based on rational trust. Again, rational

trust drives interpersonal trust or trust in organizational – behavioural trust.


       Some scholarships distinguish between interpersonal trust – trust in people (Inglehart,

1997) – from organizational trust – which is referred to from institutional trust, political trust

(i.e. trust in government, governmental institutions, politicians) to sociopolitical trust – which

encompassed political institutions, family, churches, and other institutions(Covey, & Merrill,

2006, p. 34, p.. Rahn & Rudolph (2002) make a distinction between trust in local government

and the national government (or federal) (also see Levi & Stokes, 2000). Political trust is based

on the individual’s evaluation of the political milieu, which could be parish, state, national, or

federal. Again organizational trust is not blind, and so there is need for some degree of distrust

in order to maintain democracy and guard it again those who may want to capture its functioning

(also see Patterson, 1999).


       The public will trust government, the church, family, school to name a few institutions

(or organizations) based on their competence, the character of the entity which include an

individual as well as on past performance from which credibility is established, and ‘good’

intention.   Furthermore, when citizenry have come to expect a consistent result from

governmental institutions inclusive of politicians, this builds their level of trust in the specified

entity. Hence, consistent result is one way that political institutions are able to foster trust in

them from the various publics. As people begin to evaluate the integrity of the institution, by

                                                 155
analyzing whether honesty is a hallmark of the organization as well as assess intention in an

effort to see if they are ‘good’. Political trust is, ergo, based on the public’s evaluation of

government and its affiliated institutions’ policies, programmes, promise, efficiency, fairness,

and honesty, justice, and the individual politician (also see Miller and Listhaug 1990, p. 358;

Newton and Norris 2000, p. 53)


          Measuring trust


          Subjectivity (i.e. perception) is used by many scholars to evaluate some events that

traditional scholars believe could only be measured by objectification. The issue of subjective in

the operationalization of events is well research from a quality of life of life perspective (see for

example Easterlin 2003, 2001; Edward Diener, 1984, 2000; Stutzer & Frey, 2003), but this

extends to corruption, and trust. The measurement of trust dates back to the World Values

Survey in 1959 and Almond, & Verba (1963) that used a single question to operationalize trust

(i.e. generalized trust). The question reads “Generally speaking, would you say that most people

can be trusted or that you need to be very careful in dealing with people? Two choices were

given, “most people can be trust” (coded 1) and “”need to be very careful (coded 0).             The

generalized trust question that was started in the late 1950s to the early 1960s has been modified

by other scholars such as Nye (1997), Baiser, 1983, Hardin, 1993and Powell, Bourne, & Waller

(2007).     Scholars like Powell, Bourne, & Waller measure interpersonal trust and trust in

government by way of ascertaining people’s perspective on generalized trust. Hence, they asked

“Generally speaking, would say that most people are essentially good and can be trusted, or that

most people are not essentially good and cannot be trusted” (2007, p. 109). Powell, Bourne, &

Waller’s question to collect data on generalized trust differs marginally from that of James, &



                                                156
Sykuta - "Generally speaking, do you believe that most people can be trusted or that you can't be

too careful in dealing with people?" (2004, p.1).


       Predictors of Trust in Government


       We have laid the foundation a definition of trust as well as provided a measurement for

this construct, which leaves one thing to be discussed and that is ‘what are the factors that can be

used to explain trust in government?’ Using sample survey research data from during the 1980s

Niemi & Junn (1998) sought to model factors that predict trust in government among senior high

schoolers, and found that of the entire predisposed variable they only explain 5% of the variance

in the model. Among the variables that were used by in the Niemi & Junn’s regression model is

voting behaviour, confidence in participation in school activities, participation in religious

organizations in addition to other factors.


       The study conducted by Torney-Purta et al. 2004 was a secondary one.               It was a

nationally representative sample survey research of 90, 000 students who were 14-year and

beyond from 28 countries in 1999; and in 2000 it constituted of 50,000 students (ages 16 to 19

years) who were from upper secondary school from 16 countries. From those two research,

Torney-Purta et al. (2004) study was based on 5 of the 28 countries. The countries were selected

based on stable democracies – United States and England – countries that recently were

authoritarian rule – Bulgaria and Chile – and another because of corruption and lack of

impartiality in the justice system among other aspect of governance – Colombia.                 The

researchers identified the following factors as predictors of institutional trust (or organizational

trust) – political participation, involvement in religious organizations, confidence in schools,

discussion of politics, political efficacy, civic knowledge, reading newspaper, volunteering and


                                                157
collecting for charity. The study was a five country research that includes Bulgaria, Chile,

Colombia, England and the United States. The R square coefficient was very low – Bulgaria

(0.05), Chile (0.071), Colombia (0.054), England (0.079), and the United States (0.108) (Torney-

Purta et al. 2004). According to Torney-Purta et al. 2004, organizational trust was measured on a

4-point rating scale of particular governmental institutions (national government, national

parliament, local government, justice institution (courts and police) and political parties). Hazan

(2006), United Nations (2007) and Espinal & Hartlyn (2006) concur with Torney-Purta et al.

(2004) that civil engagement (political participation) is a factor that indicates trust in

government; and in addition to the aforementioned issue, Espinal & Hartlyn find that corruption

plays a role in influencing trust in government (also see Transparency International, 2005,

p.230).


          Method


          This study utilizes primary observational data collected by the Centre of Leadership and

Governance, Department of Government, the University of the West Indies at Mona, Kingston,

Jamaica between July-August, 2006. The purpose of the survey was to collect observational data

on Jamaican’s political culture, which included pertinent information of basic orientation of

leadership, governance and democracy, perception wellbeing, trust and confidence in

sociopolitical institutions, political participation and civic engagement, electoral preferences and

leadership. The observational data were collected by way of a 166-item questionnaire. It was a

stratified nationally representative sample of some 1,338 Jamaicans, from the 14 parishes. The

questionnaire constitutes questions on civic culture and orientation to democracy, generalized

trust which constitutes the following core variables - interpersonal trust, institutional trust - and

confidence, perception of wellbeing, crime and corruption, and political participation as well as

                                                158
the standard demographic variables. The observational data were collected and stored using the

Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Dummy variables were created from some

demographic and some other variables – sex, race, religiosity, area of residence, generalized

trust, unemployed person, perceived social class and justice.             Wellbeing and political

participation were computed from a number of scale questions. Descriptive statistics were done

to provide background information on the sample; tests were done for Cronbach alpha to

examine the reliability of the construct – i.e. wellbeing and political participation. Then, logistic

regression was used to build a model. A goodness of fit statistics was done for on the model.




       Measure



Sex, ‘X’. Sex is a binary measure, where 1=male and 0=female.



Subjective Social Class, ‘S’. This is people’s perception of their social and economic position in
life, based on social stratification.

  Class1                          1=Middle class, 0=other

  Class2                          1=Upper class, 0=other

The reference group is ‘Lower Classes



Religiosity, ‘R’. The frequency with which people attend religious services, which does not
include attending functions such as (1) graduations, (2) weddings, (3) christenings, (4) funerals.
This variable begins with 0 being the most attended to 7, being none at all.



Political Trust, ‘Ti ’. This is people’s perception of their ‘trust’ in government. Thus, trust is a
binary variable, where 1= ‘Can be trusted, and 0=Never be too Careful.



                                                159
Subjective Psychological Wellbeing Index, ‘SPWB’. SPWB = ΣQ i / Σf; where Q i is the selected
value from each ladder of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need, and ‘f’ being the frequency of the event.
The Cronbach α=0.762 for the 5-item variables, which are used to constitute this Index.




Political Participation Index, ‘PPI’. Based on Trevor Munroe’s work, ‘political participation’
“...the extent to which citizens use their rights, such as the right to protest, the right of free
speech, the right to vote, to influence or to get involved in political activity” (Munroe, 2002:4),
We use the construct forwarded by Munroe to formulate a PPI = Σb i , b i ≥ 0. The b i represents
each response to a question on political behaviour, such as voting, involvement in protest (see
extended list in Appendix II); and 0≤PPI≤19 with the Cronbach α for the five-item scale being
0.76. The interpretation of the scores are as follows – (1) low is between 0 and 7, (2) moderate
ranges from 8 to 13, and (3) high means a score from 14 to 19.



Confidence Index, ‘CFI’. The CFI = Σ fi .c i , where f i indicates the frequency of the occurrence
of the event, and c i denotes the event. F i ranges from 1=no confidence, 2=a little confidence,
3=some confidence, and 4=a lot of confidence. (See Appendix IV for extended listing of the ci).
Confidence index = summation of 22 items, with each question being weighted equally; and
0≤confidence index≤88, with a Cronbach α for the 22-item scale being 0.896. The higher the
scores, the more people have confidence in sociopolitical institutions within the society. Thus,
the confidence index is interpreted as from 0 to 34 represents very little confidence; 35 to 61 is
low confidence; 62 to 78 is moderate confidence and 79 to 88 is most confidence.




Educational Level, ‘E’.

       Edu_level1                     1=Primary/Preparatory, 0=Other

       Edu_level2                     1=All age, secondary and vocational skills, 0=other

       Edu_level3                     1=University, and professional training, 0=other

The reference group is ‘No formal’ education.




                                                160
Perceived Corruption. Perception of corruption is a binary measure, which is represented by
1=yes or 0=no to the question “Have you or someone in your family known of an act of
corruption in the last 12 months?” (Powell, Bourne and Waller, 2007:126).



Ethnicity, ‘Et ’.

        Ethn1                     1=Black, 0=Other

        Ethn2                     1=White, 0=Other

        Ethn3                     1=Brown, 0=Other

The reference group is Chinese, Indians, et cetera.



Justice, ‘J’. This variable is a non-metric variable, which speaks to people’s perception of the
‘fairness’ of the judiciary system (or ‘fairness, for that matter as it relates to system favouring a
few rich people in making a judicial decision). The construct will be dummy coded as 1=Yes,
and 0=No.



Governance of the country, G, is defined as people’s perception of administration of the society
by the elected officials. This is a dummy variable, where 1 denotes in favour of a few powerful
interest groups or the affluent, 0 is otherwise



Area of Residence, ‘AR’. This variable is the parish in which the individual lives while the
study was being conducted.

     AreaRes1                        1= Kingston and St. Andrew, 0=Other14

     AreaRes2                        1=St. Catherine, O=Other



Age, ‘A’. This is a continuous variable, which is in years.




14
  Jamaica is subdivided into fourteen parishes which exclude Kingston and St. Andrew. The Others are – St.
Thomas; Portland; St. Mary; St. Ann; Trelawny; St. James; Hanover; Westmoreland; St. Elizabeth; Manchester,
Clarendon, and St. Catherine.

                                                      161
       Results



       Of the 1,338 respondents interviewed for the study, 55.7% are females (n=723) compared
to 44.3% males (n=574), with a response rate of 96.7% (See Table 1). The average age of the
sample is 35 years ± 14 years. Substantially more of the sample classify themselves as being a
part of the lower social class (59.0%, n=766), 36.6% are of the middle class (n=476) compared
to 4.4% who are in the upper class (n=57). The findings reveal that most of the respondents have
attained the secondary level education (69.0%, n=892), 26.2% (n=339) have acquired post-
secondary training, 3.1% (n=40) primary or preparatory level education compared to 1.5% have
no formal education whatsoever. Based on Table 1, Trelawny is the only parish with the least
number of interviewees, 3.8% (n=50), with the other area of residence showing a similar
percentage of respondents. Another demographic variable of importance to this research is
ethnicity/race, 90.0% of the interviewed are Blacks and Browns, with 8.0% being Whites (or
Caucasians) compared to 2.0% who indicate others such as Chinese, Indians, and Other races.
(See Table 1).

       Of a sampled population of 1,338 respondents, approximately 63% (62.7%, n=795)
report that they do not trust other people compared to 37% (n=472). The sample had marginally
more females (55.7%, n=723) than males (44.3%, n=574). Continuing, most of the respondents
are Blacks include those who classified themselves as Brown (90.0%, n=1,201), with 8.0%
(n=106) Caucasians, and 20% (n=26) of other ethnicities. Furthermore, 59% of the respondents
report that they are within the lower class, approximately 37% (36.6%, n=476) middle class
compared to 4.4% (n=57) who say upper class. Another demographic characteristic was the
educational level of the respondents, 1.5% (n=20) report ‘no formal’ education, 3.1% (n=40) say
primary/preparatory education, 69% (n=892) remark secondary/high, and 26.2% (n339) indicate
post-secondary level education. (see Table 1)




                                                162
Table 1: Findings - Demographic Variables, N=1,338
       Characteristics                                               Percentage (Count)


Gender:
Male                                                                         44.3 (574)
Female                                                                       55.7 (723)

Ethnicity:
White                                                                        8.0 (106)
Black and Brown                                                              90.0 (1,201)
Other                                                                        2.0 (26)

Subjective Social Class
Lower                                                                       59.0 (766)
Middle                                                                      36.6 (476)
Upper                                                                         4.4 (57)
Age                                                   35yrs. ± 14 yrs., Range 69 yrs. (85 – 16 yrs.)
Respondents’ Educational Level
No Formal                                                                    1.5 (20)
Primary/Preparatory                                                          3.1 (40)
Secondary                                                                    69.0 (892)
Tertiary                                                                     26.2 (339)




       A finding of utmost importance is the ‘subjective psychological wellbeing’ (i.e. SPWB)
of the respondents, the average for the SPWB index is 6.9 out of 10, with the mode being 7.8.
This finding reveals that on an average the self-reported psychologic wellbeing of Jamaicans is
high. However, confidence in institutions in Jamaica, based on the sampled responses, is very
low (i.e. 2.6 out of 22). (see Table 2)

       Of the sampled respondents, majority of Jamaicans reported the administration of justice
in the country is for a few power interest groups (i.e. favours a few affluent people within the
society) – that is 74.1%. (See Table 2). This means that 7 out of every 10 Jamaicans perceived
that the administration of justice favours the bourgeois’ class and not the masses. Similarly, 7 out
of 10 Jamaicans reported that the governance of the country favours a few powerful interests
groups or people (i.e. 72.6%). When we cross tabulated governance of the country by the

                                                163
administration of justice, we found that a weak statistical association exists between the two
aforementioned variables – χ2 (1) = 167.26, ρ value = 0.001, phi = 0.34). The findings (in Table
2) revealed that 82.4% of Jamaicans believe that when the administration of justice favours the
rich, the country is governed in the interest a few powerful people – the rich. (See Table 2).
However, 55.3% of those who reported that the administration of justice favours all indicated
that the country was governed for all. We are pointing out here that although statistically there is
a weak relationship between the two aforementioned variables, for one factor out of a plethora of
social conditions to be explaining 34% of an association between two conditions that variable
(perception of administration of justice) is a significant contributed to the perception of the
governance of the country. When the phenomenon of governance of the country by
administration of justice was done with regard to the total sampled population, we found that
61.4% (n=751) reported that the governance of Jamaica for a few powerful interest is reflected in
the administration of justice favouring that group.




                                                164
Table 2: Findings – Other Variables, N=1,338
               Characteristics                                     Percentage (Count)

Political Participation Index                                     4.0 ± 3.7
                                                            Mode = 0, max = 19

Subjective Psychological Wellbeing Index                           6.9 ± 1.7
                                                       Mode = 7.8, max = 10

Confidence Index                                                   2.6 ± 0.5
                                                       Mode = 2.6, max = 22
Employment Status
Employed                                                    55.1 (732)
Unemployed                                                  25.9 (345)
Self-employed                                               19.0 (252)

Interpersonal Trust: An Individual’s Trust in Others
Yes                                                         37.3 (472)
No                                                          62.7 (795)

Administration of Justice in Jamaica
Favours a few                                               74.1 (929)
For all                                                     25.9 (324)

Trust in Government
Yes                                                          8.0 (99)
No                                                          92.0 (1134)

Governance of Jamaica
Favours a few powerful interest                             72.6 (921)
For all                                                     27.4 (348)




                                               165
       The researchers, being a social demographer and a sociologist, are cognizant that
perception of the sexes is sometimes different and so we disaggregated the findings in Table 3.1
by males and females to ascertain any difference in opinions between the aforementioned sexes.
We found that there is a statistical difference between the perceptions of males compared to that
of their female counterparts. The findings revealed that 86.5% of the males believe that when the
administration of justice favours the affluent, the governance of the country is in the interest of
those few powerful groups or people compared to 79% of the females. Concomitantly, we found
that the views of males are a stronger explanation for the aforementioned issues (42.5%)
compared to that of females (32.2%). (See Table 3.1).




Table 3.1: Perception of Governance of the country by Administration of Justice,
                                       N=1,224


                                                     Administration of Justice


                                                       Favours       Favours all
                                                       rich


                                    A few              82.4          44.7

                 Governance:


                                    All                17.6          55.3

                                    Total              99            270

                      χ2 (1) = 167.26, ρ value = 0.001, phi = 0.34




                                               166
        Concurrently, this was the opposite for interpersonal trust. The findings revealed that

most Jamaicans do not trust other persons (i.e. 37.3% of them trust each other – meaning that

approximately 4 out of every 10 Jamaicans trust the other persons. The issues was even further

alarming when we investigated people’s perception of ‘trust in government’ as only 8% of

Jamaicans trust the government.          This means that 8 out of every 100 Jamaicans trust the

government, which in comparison to interpersonal trust denotes that Jamaicans trust the

government 5 times less than how they trust other persons. (See Table 3.2).




Table 3.2: Perception of Governance of the country by Administration of Justice, controlled for
sex                   N=1,224

                                          Male 15
Female 16

                                 Administration of Justice                Administration of Justice

                               Favours rich     Favours all            Favours rich   Favours all



                A Few            86.5             44.0                       79.0        45.8

Governance:



                  All            13.5             56.0                       21.0        54.2




15 2
  χ (1) = 96.031, ρ value = 0.001, ϕ (i.e. phi) = 0.425, with n= 532


16 2
  χ (1) = 68.161, ρ value = 0.001, ϕ (i.e. phi) = 0.322, with n= 659



                                                    167
Total                         407            125                            480      179

        On investigating whether a relation exists between governance of the country in favour of
the rich and perceived corruption, 92.5% of the total population was used for this cross
tabulation. We found that a statistical association between the two aforementioned variables - χ2
(1) = 10.042, ρ value = 0.001 < 0.05, with the relation being a weak one single correlation = 9%.
Of those who indicated that they believe that corruption is a part of the society, 80% of them
reported that the governance of the society favours the rich and all Jamaicans equally. On the
other hand, of those who revealed that corruption does not exist, 70.2% of them indicated that
governance favours the rich. It follows from this finding that there is a positive statistical
association between perceived corruption and the governance of the nation (see Table 3.3).



        Table 3.3: Governance by Perception of Corruption, N=1,238


                                                     Perceived Corruption


                                                       No           Yes


                                    No                 29.8         20.0

                  Governance:


                                    Yes                70.2         80.0

                                    Total              968          270

                      χ2 (1) = 10.042, ρ value = 0.001 < 0.05, phi = 0.09




                                               168
Of the total population (N=1,338), 89.5% of the population was used for the cross tabulation

between trust in government and perception in corruption in the country.          We found no

statistical relation between the two aforementioned variables - χ2 (1) = 0.615, ρ value = 0.433>

0.05. Approximately 9% of those who reported to believe that corruption exists in Jamaica

indicated that they trusted the government. On the other hand, 8% of those who reported that no

corruption exists in Jamaica revealed that they trust the government. There is no difference 8%

and the 9%, which means that whether people believe that corruption exist, that they trusted

governments (see Table 3.4).




       Table 3.4: Trust in government by Perception of Corruption, N=1,198


                                                    Perceived Corruption


                                                      No           Yes


                                   No                 92.1         90.6

                 Trust in gov’t:


                                   Yes                7.9          9.4

                                   Total              933          265

                      χ2 (1) = 0.615, ρ value = 0.433> 0.05


       Further examination of those who responded to the question of perceived corruption and
trust in government revealed that 2.1% of the entire sample indicated that corruption exists in
Jamaica and that they trust the government. 20% of the sampled respondents reported that
corruption exists in Jamaica and not trusting the government. On the other hand, 72% of


                                              169
respondents reported that they do not trust the government and that corruption does not exists in
Jamaica.

Multivariate Analysis



The primary purpose for this study is to model factors that explain Jamaican’s trust in

government. Thus, we have written a hypothesis which is based on literature on some

explanatory variables that explain the why people trust government. Ergo we formulae the

hypothesis in Eqn (1) below, which is to study the relation between people’s trust in government

and some predisposed variables.




General Hypothesis:



T G =ƒ (Wi, CFI, E, R, J, S, A, O, PC, G, X, RA, PPI, Ti )…………… [1]




     where T i is interpersonal trust of person i; TG is trust in government; R i is religiosity of

person i; education of individual i, E i ; RA i denotes race of individual; PPIi means political

participation index of individual i; S i is sex of individual i; S i represents self-reported social

class of individual i; Xi indicates employment status of person i; CFIi , is the confidence level of

person i; Wi is wellbeing of person i; A i - age of person i; J i this is justice of person i, area of

residence, Zi of person i; O is occupation of person I; PC is perceived corruption as indicated by

individual i, and G denotes the perception of governance of the country by elected officials.




                                                 170
        Interpreting the Regression Model




        In this section of the paper, we describe the results of the multivariate analysis in

attempting to test the hypothesis as was stated in aforementioned Eqn. (1). Logistic regression

was conducted on full sample, which consisted of all the respondents who answered the

questions (i.e. completed data). Of the sampled population (n=1,338), 64.1% was used for the

logistic regression model on trust in government. The observational data were used to test the

general hypothesis [Equation 1], and we found that of the 14 predisposed variables that were

identified by the literature, only 6 were statistically significant as influencers of trust in

government (see Table 4 ). Before we commence a discussion on the model, we need to address

the question of ‘What are the goodness of fits and the adequacy of the model’. (see Table 5)




Testing for Goodness of fit and the adequacy of the model




Table 5: ‘The Classification Table of Trust in Government


                Observed                                       Predicted
                                                      Trust In govt      Percentage
                                                     .00        1.00      Correct
                Trust In govt  .00                     779           8          99.0
                               1.00                      61          9          12.9
                Overall Percentage                                              91.9


       Before we are able to report on the findings of the multivariate model, we will evaluate

whether or not the model fits the observational data. “The Classification of Table” was used to

                                               171
compare the predicted to the observed outcomes. The Table reveals that seventy respondents

were incorrectly classified: 61 of these who report trust in government and 9 who did not.

Overall, 91.9% of the 857 respondents were correctly classified: 12.9% of those with ‘trust

government’ and 99.0% of those who had no trust in the Jamaican government. (in Table 5)




       Using the observational data, the final model is given in equation [2]. The variables
which are used in Eqn [2] are only those that are statistically significant.




       TG = ƒ (CFI, G, X, PPI, J, Ti ) ..……………..………………. [2]




       Having established the explanatory variables from the general hypothesis in Eqn. [1],

Eqn. [2] explains 0.273 or 27.3 percentage (Nagelkerke R square is 0.273) of the variation in

trust of the Jamaican government based on confidence in sociopolitical institutions, governance

of the country, sex of respondents, political participation, administration of justice and

interpersonal trust - with the -2 Log likelihood being 377.05, with the overall model having a

Wald statistic = 376.38, p value = 0.001.


       Of the 6 explanatory variables that explain trust in government in Jamaica – Eqn. [2] -

confidence in sociopolitical institutions contributes the most to the explanation power of trust in

government (Wald statistic 13.863, pvalue = 0.001), followed by governance of the country (

Wald statistic = 11.706, interpersonal trust (Wald statistic = 11.363, pvalue =0.001), then

political participation (Wald statistic 10.412, pvalue = 0.001), with the other in descending order

                                                 172
being justice (Wald statistic 6.822, pvalue=0.009) and last by sex (4.021, pvalue =0.039).

Concurrently, we found a positive association between the following variables (i.e. confidence in

sociopolitical institutions; sex, political participation, and interpersonal trust), with justice and

governance showing negative association with trust in government. Embedded in these findings

are the interpretations of those directions. As the positive for sex denotes that males are more

trust in government that their female counterparts – the degree of this trust is approximately

twice [Exp (B) = 1.782]. Continuing, the more people are confident in sociopolitical institutions,

they are approximately 3 times [Exp (B) = 3.312] more likely to trust the government. The more

people participate in both conventional and unconventional political activities, they are 1.1 times

[Exp (B) = 1.128] more likely to trust the government. Whereas the more people trust each

other, they are approximately 3 times [Exp. (B) = 2.656] more likely to trust in the government.

On the other contrary, we found an inverse association between justice and trusting in

government, and governance of the country and trust in government. This means that if were to

people perceive that governance of the country is favouring a few power interest groups or

people, they will trust the government 0.342 times less than if they were to believe that the

society is governed for all. (see Table 4). Similarly this was found to be the case for when the

perceived administration of justice favours the rich; people will trust the government 0.441 times

less.


        Having established that there are 6 factors influence trust in government in Jamaica,

based on primary observational data, we will now examine whether the aforementioned factors

are explanatory ones or predictive ones of trust in government. Ergo, we will investigate this

matter using a logarithmetic function (see Eqn [3.1], below).


Using Eqn [2], we will use the formula lg [pi/1-pi).

                                                173
       TG = ƒ (CFI, G, Xi , PPI, J, Ti ) ..……………..………………. [2]




       Log (pi/1-pi) = b 0 + b 1 CFI + b 2 G + b 3 J + b 4 Xi + b 5 PPI + b6 Ti ………….…..[3.1]



       where pi is the probability of trust for model one; b i parameters estimates of confidence

in social and political institutions, governance, justice, political participation, interpersonal trust

and sex of individual i, with b 0 being the constant.


Log {pi/1-pi} = -4.263+ 1.198CFI – 1.074G – 0.818J + 0.578X i + 0.120PPI + 0.977Ti ...[3.2]


       In the researchers’ examination of Eqn. [3.2], we will establish the models, with model1

being low in (1) confidence and political participation; model 2 – moderate confidence in

sociopolitical institutions and political participation, and model 3 – high in confidence in

sociopolitical institutions and political participation. In all 3 model, we use that the individual is

a male, the person trust other people, the individual perceives that the administration of justice

favours the rich and that the perception is governance favours only a few powerful interest

groups (or peoples).


       The values obtained for pi [see Table 6] are clear indication that the factors are predictive

ones for trust in government.       A probability of 1 (or 100%) speaks to the certainty that

confidence in sociopolitical institutions (CFI), governance of the country (G), administration of

justice (J), sex of respondents (X), political participation (PPI), and interpersonal trust (T) are all

explanatory variables of trust in government. It should be noted, that although those explanatory

variables only explain 27% in the variance in trust in government, the model that we have built

here does not claim to provide all the explanation of why Jamaicans do not trust the government


                                                 174
because we were limited by the dataset (i.e. the observational data collected on various political

issues) and so we did not explore many of those conditions that explain trust in government.

However, this study is a start in provide answers in why Jamaicans do not trust their

governments. Hence, we now know that trust in government can be explains by equation 2 (see

Eqn. [2], below] :


TG = ƒ (CFI, G, Xi , PPI, J, Ti ) ..……………..………………. [2]




                                               175
         Table 6: Testing the predictive power the Model (i.e. Equation [2])

                                                                       Model


                                                          Model 1          Model 2          Model 3
          Parameters:



           -4.263                                         -4.263           -4.263           -4.263


           1.198*CFI17                                    73.078           93.444           105.424

           -1.074*G                                       -1.074           -1.074           -1.074

           0.578*Xi                                       0.578            0.578            0.578

           0.120*PPI18                                    0.84             1.56             2.28

           -0.818*J                                       -0.818           -0.818           -0.818

           0.077*Ti                                       0.077            0.077            0.077




             Log {pi/1-pi}=                               z = 68.418       89.504           102.204

             pi/1-pi= ez                                  5.17*1029        7.43*1038        2.44*1044

             pi = ez / [1 + e z]                          1                1                1




17
   Low confidence in socio-political institution lies between a score of 0 and 61, and for this we will use the upper
limit in Model 1; moderate ranges from 62 to 78, but we use upper limit of 78, and high is between 79 and 88 and
again we will use the upper limit (i.e. 88)
18
   Low political participation ranges from a score of 0 to 7, and for this we will use the upper limit in Model 1;
moderate ranges from 8 to13, so we will use the upper limit of 13, and high is between 14 and 19 and again we
will use the upper limit (i.e. 19)

                                                         176
        Discussion and Conclusion




        There is no doubt that corruption in many developing countries has been increasing in

particular Jamaica (TI, 1999-2007).        Within the context of high extortion, crime and

victimization, and the arrest of some public officials for corruption in the last year, corruption in

Jamaica is undoubtedly a reality and not a perception. The literature has shown that trust in

government and its related institutions has been low, and that this is equally so in high trust

societies like the United States. Generalized trust in government in Jamaica is extremely low

(i.e. 8 out of 100 people), and this should come as no surprise as the crime rates continue to

increase as well as corruption (see TI, 1999-2006). Notwithstanding the high level of corruption,

crime and victimization in developing countries, the literature reveals that trust in government in

the United States up to 2001 was 2 out of 10 Americans, and that this is coming from 7 out of 10

in the late 1950s to early 1960s (Nye, 1997). Outside of the geographic space of America, for

example Italy, and Germany to name a few nations, trust in government is also low. And the trust

in federal (national) government is even lower than that for local government across all the

societies.


        The literature has already established that there is a reciprocated relation between

corruption and trust, and so within this context Jamaica is expected to be a low trusting society.

The low trusting society that Jamaica is began from as early as its slavery past. As the plantation

society was built on distrust between the plantocratic class and the slave class (further readings

can be found in George Beckford, 1999).           This was further complicated as distrust was




                                                177
encouraged between slaves as this was the approach used by the slave owner to monitor its

slaves.


          Although slavery was officially abolished in 1838 (August 1) and the fact that the nation

got its independence in August 1962, successive governments in Jamaica have not sought to

establish themselves based on credulity; good intent; consistent results from a good track record;

character; practice accountability; create transparency; use - justice, equality, equity, and fair

play in its operations, and avoid the manipulation and distortion of facts for personal gains.

Hence, public trust continues to be low and the citizenry of the nation cannot believe in their

‘good’ intent and motive because government’s past performance has left a ‘bad’ track record

that the people have come not to trust. We have empirical information that has revealed the level

of distrust in national and local governments as well as some of its related institutions (such as

the police, customs, political parties, courts, parliament to name those organizations with which

the public as the least trust – Powell, Bourne, & Waller, 2007, p.27) are very high. But, what are

the factors that determine trust in government.


          The literature that inform this study shows that corruption; civic engagement (i.e.

Political participation); the justice system; religious involvement, and confidence in social

institution (i.e. school) are predictors of trust in government. This study concurs with most of

the factors identified by the literature – political participation, the justice system and confidence

in social institutions – as having an influence on trust in government.          In addition to the

aforementioned variable, we also expanded the literature by this research as we found that

governance, interpersonal trust and gender of respondents are also predictors of trust in

government. Although it is well established that corruption is reciprocated with trust in

government, this variable was not a predictor (or factor) of trust in government for Jamaicans.

                                                  178
       In this study we refined past work by examining the impact of the predictor variables on

trust in government. We find that political participation increase trust in government by 1.1

times, interpersonal trust by some 2.7 times, and confidence in social institutions by 3.3 times.

The justice system and the governance of the nation were both reducing from trust in

government – by 0.4 times and 0.3 times respectively. The findings revealed that governance of

the society is a more significant variable (Wald statistic = 11.71) than the justice system. Hence,

the actions (or inactions) of government and its related institution do more damage to trust in

government than the judiciary system. An additional factor that this study adds is sex. Males are

approximately twice more trusting of government in Jamaican compared to their female

counterparts (Exp (B) = 1.78). Of the factors identified in this study as predictors of trust in

government (p value < 0.05), the most influential is confidence in socio-political institutions

(Wald statistic = 13.9), followed by governance (Wald statistic=11.7); interpersonal trust (Wald

statistic = 11.4); political participation (i.e. civic engagement) (Wald statistic = 10.3); the justice

system (Wald statistic =6.8), and lastly by sex of the respondents (Wald statistic = 4.0).


       In this study not only did we expand on the number of variables that can be used to

predict trust as well as refined the effect of each variable, but we also had an explanatory power

that was more than twice that of many studies identified that have examined trust in government.

The R-square (Nagelkerke R-square) for this research was 27.3%, compared to those found in

the literature. Furthermore, not only are the variables significant (p value <0.05), they are also

predictor of trust in government.


       In summary, governments in Jamaica have been suffering from deficit in trust like the

nation’s budget. And any building of trust in government must first begin by accepting the

factors that affect trust and secondly by an awareness that their actions (or inactions) coupled

                                                 179
with that of their related institution affect public confidence, cooperation from the citizenry and

civic engagement. The building of trust goes beyond increasing political participation to include

the paying of taxes, cooperation with state agencies (example customs, police, judiciary), the

fostering of credibility and ‘good’ intent and motives, inspiring trust in life, provide a collective

vision that is sellable, lowering bureaucracy, reducing transactional cost of doing business, and

provide a society where people have trust in other person’s motive and intent. It follows that in

order the society to address the scourge of crime, we need to look at the tenets of trust in as well

as to address issues of inequality, dishonesty, inconsistent results, character, low transparency,

the lack of accountability and ‘taking of people for granted’ in decision making. Trust is crucible

to peace, stability, and development in any society; and so, democracy relies on this

phenomenon. Hence, trust is a primate factor in cooperation, confidence and stability without

which crime; corruption, dishonesty and anarchy are byproducts.            Even though perceived

corruption does not affect trust in government, it should be noted here that cooperation with

government and its related institutions are not expected to be high as perceived corruption affect

the perception that the governance in the country favours the rich. And this explains the low

willingness of people to cooperate with the paying of taxes, voting, and other civic engagement

as trustworthiness is one of the pillows upon which democracy operates, and that those different

typologies of civic engagement are based on trust; which explains the stability of a nation’s

democracy.


       Limitation of the Study


       This study was a cross-sectional one. And so, the model that we have developed herein is

providing us with information for a snapshot in time. Trust is continuous. Hence, using data from

2006 from a static study, although it provides a basis from which we can understand the

                                                180
phenomenon, is already outdated. Ergo it is not measuring the variability in trust. Within the

context of the increasing corruption, crime, confessions from a state officer that he had fabricated

results in order for the court to convict the individual of wrongdoing needs a study pre-and-post

the fact. In addition to the aforementioned issues that were raised earlier, the research did not

examine some of the variables that literature identified as being significant predictors of trust in

government. Nor did we consume a measure for corruption as the one that was use herein is

people’s perception of corruption being in the society. Although perception of corruption may

be a proxy for corruption, it is not the same.




         Direction for future research




         Given the limitations of this study, we recommend that a longitudinal study be conducted

with the same set of variables as well as those identified in the literature but were not used in this

paper.    Secondly, that corruption should be calculated using Transparency International’s

Corruption Index approach as this is benchmark that is used to evaluate corruption in the world.




                                                 181
Table 4: Logistic regression of Trust in Government, N=857



Dependent variable: Trust in Government
                                                                                           95.0% C.I.for
                                                                                               EXP(B)
 Explanatory Variables:         B        S.E.      Wald       df       Sig.     Exp(B)    Lower     Upper
              Wellbeing         -.063      .078      .658          1     .417      .939      .806     1.094
              Confidence        1.198      .322    13.863          1     .000     3.312     1.763     6.221
              Primary           -.521     1.172      .198          1     .657      .594      .060     5.907
              Secondary        -1.020     1.017     1.005          1     .316      .361      .049     2.648
              Post second      -1.248     1.063     1.377          1     .241      .287      .036     2.308
              Tertiary         -2.122     1.094     3.764          1     .052      .120      .014     1.022
              Religiosity        .091      .068     1.772          1     .183     1.095      .958     1.252
              Justice           -.818      .313     6.822          1     .009      .441      .239      .815
              socialcl1          .210      .313      .450          1     .502     1.234      .668     2.279
              socialcl2          .434      .607      .512          1     .474     1.544      .470     5.075
              Age               -.013      .012     1.254          1     .263      .987      .964     1.010
              Occupation        -.295      .385      .588          1     .443      .745      .350     1.583
              Perceived
                                 .482      .350      1.898         1     .168     1.619      .816     3.213
              corruption
              Governance       -1.074      .314     11.706         1     .001      .342      .185      .632
              Sex                .578      .288      4.021         1     .045     1.782     1.013     3.133
              Areares            .618      .337      3.358         1     .067     1.855      .958     3.593
              Political
              participatio       .120      .037     10.412         1     .001     1.128     1.048     1.214
              n
              Interpersona
                                 .977      .290     11.363         1     .001     2.656     1.505     4.687
              l Trust
              Constant         -4.263     1.654      6.643         1     .010      .014



                                                             182
                                             Reference



Almond, Gabriel A., and Sidney Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and

       Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Baier, A. (1986). Trust and Antitrust. Ethics, 96: 231-260.

Beckford, G. (1999). Persistent poverty. Underdevelopment in Plantation Economies of the
      Third World, 2nd. Kingston: The University of the West Indies Press.

Berman, E. M. (1997). Dealing with cynical citizens. Public Administration Review, 57,

       105-112.

Boxill, I., Lewis, B., Rusell, R., Bailey, A., Waller, L., James, C., Martin, P., & Gibbs, L. (2007).
        Political Culture of Democracy in Jamaica: 2006. United States: The United States
        Agency for International Development.

Bourne, P.A. (2008). Public confidence in Organization: Using Sample Survey Research for
      July-August, 2006. Manuscript Submitted for publication.

Covey, S.M.R., & Merrill, R.R. (2006).         The speed of trust. The one thing that changes
      everything. New York: Free Press.

Diener, Edward. 2000. Subjective Well-Being: The Science of Happiness and a Proposal for a
   National      Index.            American    Psychological      Association,   55:34-43.
   http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/conferences/socialcapital/Happiness%20Readings/Diener_200
   0.pdf (accessed April 6, 2006).

Diener, Edward. 1984. Subjective wellbeing. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 3:542-575.

Easterlin, Richard, A. 2003. Building a better theory of well-being. Prepared for presentation at
    the Conference “Paradoxes of Happiness in Economics”, University of Milano-Bicocca,
    March 21-23, 2003. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~easterl/papers/BetterTheory.pdf (accessed
    August 26, 2006).

Easterlin, Richard, A. 2001. Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory. The Economic
   Journal,         111:465-484http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/specialarticles/ecoj644.pdf
   (accessed on August 26, 2006).

Espinal, R. and J. Hartlyn. “Performance Still Matters Explaining Trust in Government in the

   Dominican Republic,” Comparative Political Studies 39, 2 (March 2006): 200-23.


                                                183
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust, New York: Free Press.

GALLUP. (2008). Trust in government. Retrieved on May 21, 2008 from
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/5392/Trust-Government.aspx.

Garske, John P. (1976). Personality and generalized expectancies for interpersonal           trust.
       Psychological Reports, 39(2): 649–650.

Gurtman, Michael and Clifford Lion (1982). Interpersonal trust and perceptual vigilance for
      trustworthiness descriptions. Journal of Research in Personality, 16(1): 108–117.

Hardin, Russell. (2002). Trust and Trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hardin, Russell. (2004). Distrust. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hardin, T. (1993). The street-level epistemology of trust. Politics & Society, 21:505-529.

Hazan, P. “Morocco: Betting on a Truth and Reconciliation Commission” United States Institute

       of Peace Paper. Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace (July 2006): 1-16.

Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Moore, E. (2002). What is it about government that Americans dislike?
       Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and post modernization: Cultural, economic and political

       change in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

James, H.S. Jr., & Sykuta, M.E. (2004, October). Generalized and Particularized Trust in
       Organization. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the International Society for New
       Institutional Economics meetings in Tucsan, Arizona, USA.

Jones, J.M. (2007, September 26). Low trust in Federal Government rivals Watergate era levels.
        Gallup. Retrieved on May 21, 2008 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/28795/Low-Trust-
        Federal-Government-Rivals-Watergate-Era-Levels.aspx.

Jones, Karen (1996). Trust as an affective attitude. Ethics, 107(1): 4–25.

Kramer, Roderick M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives,
      enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50: 569–598.

La Porte, T. R., & Metlay, D. S. (1996). Hazard and institutional trustworthiness: Facing

       a deficit of trust. Public Administration Review, 56, 341- 347.

Levi, M., & Stoker, L. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political

       Science 3, 475-507.


                                                184
Lipset, S. M., & Schneider, W. (1987). The confidence gap: Business, labor, and government in
        the public mind. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Klingemann, H. (1999). Mapping support in the 1990’s: A global analysis. In P. Norris (Ed.),

       Critical citizens: Global support for democratic governance (pp. 40-44). Oxford: Oxford
       University Press.

Miller, A. H. and O. Listhaug. “Political Parties and Confidence in Government: A Comparison

       of Norway, Sweden and the United States,” British Journal of Political Science 20, 3

       (July 1990): 357-386.

Munroe, Trevor. (2002). An Introduction to Politics. Lectures for First-Year Students, 3rd.
    Kingston: Canoe.

Munroe, Trevor. (1999). Renewing democracy into the Millennium. The Jamaican Experience
    in Perspective. Kingston: The University of the West Indies Press.

Newton, K. and P. Norris. “Confidence in Public Institutions: Faith, Culture, or Performance?”
in

       Disaffected Democracies: What’s troubling the Trilateral Democracies? S. J. Pharr and

       R.D. Putnam (eds.) New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000: 52-73.

Niemi, R., & Junn, J. (1998). Civic education: What makes students learn. New Haven: Yale

       University Press.

NPR, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, John F. Kennedy School of Government. 2000.
       Americans distrust government, but want it to do more. Retrieved on May 21, 2008 from
       http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/poll/govt/summary.html.

Nye, J. 1997. Introduction: The Decline of Confidence in Government. In Why People Don’t
       Trust Government? J. Nye, S. Joseph, P.D. Zelikow and DC King (eds.) Cambridge:
       Harvard University Press.

Patterson, O. (1999). Liberty against the democratic state: On the historical and contemporary
        sources of American distrust. In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy and trust (pp. 151-207).
        Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Powell, L., Bourne, P., & Waller, L. (2007). Probing Jamaica’s Political Culture, vol. 1. Main
    Trends in the July-August 2006 Leadership and Governance Survey. Kingston: Centre of
    Leadership and Governance, the University of the West Indies at Mona.


                                              185
Rahn, W. & Rudolph, T. (2002). A multilevel model of trust in local government. Paper
      presented at the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.

Rotter, Julian B. (1967). A new scale of measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of
        Personality, 35: 651–665.

Rotter, Julian B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American
        Psychologist, 35(1): 1–7.

Schlenker, Barry R., Bob Helm, and James T. Tedeschi (1973). The effects of        personality
       and situational variables on behavioral trust. Journal of Personality and Social
       psychology, 25(3): 419–427.

Stone, C. (1974). Electoral Behaviour and Public Opinion in Jamaica. Kingston: University

         of the West Indies, ISER.

Stutzer, Alois and Frey, Bruno S. 2003. Reported subjective well-being: A challenge for
    economic theory and economic policy. http://www.crema-research.ch/papers/2003-07.pdf
    (accessed August 31, 2006).

Transparency International. (1990 – 2007). Transparency International Annual Report. Berlin:
     Transparency International.

Torney-Purta, Judith, Richardson, Klandl, W., & Barber, Carolyn H. (2004, August). Trust in
      government-related institutions and civic engagement among adolescents: Analysis of
      five countries from the IEA civic education study, Circle Working Paper, the Centre of
      Information and Research on Civic Engagement.

Uslaner, Eric M. 2005. Trust and corruption. In global corruption report, 2005 Transparency
       International. London: Transparency International.

Uslaner, E. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. New York: Cambridge University Press.

United     Nations. (2007). Building Trust through Civic Engagement. New                    York,
         http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN028357.pdf

Webster’s (1913). Webter’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield:

         Merriam Company.

Wheeless, L.R. and Grotz J. “The Measurement of Trust and Its Relationship to Self-
Disclosure,” Human Communication Research 3, 3 (March 1977): 250-257

Yamagishi, Toshio, Masako Kikuchi, and Motoko Kosugi (1999). Trust, gullibility, and social
      intelligence. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2(2): 145–161.

                                                186
   Appendix I



Confidence in sociopolitical institutions

I am going to read to you a list of major groups and institutions in our society. For each, tell me
how much CONFIDENCE you have in that group or institution. For each, do you have …..?

   (9) NO CONFIDENCE
   (10)     A LITTLE CONFIDENCE
   (11)     SOME CONFIDENCE
   (12)     A LOT OF CONFIDENCE

       Q121. “Police” ……………
       Q12 2. “Would you say you have a lot, some a little or no confidence in “trade union”
       Q123.in “political in parties”…
       Q124.in “churches”
       Q125.”Large companies corporation”
       Q126.
       Q127.school”
       Q128.”Families”
       Q129.”Universities”
       Q130.”Private sector”
       Q131.”Bank”
       Q132.”Prime minister”
       Q133.”Judiciary Courts”
       Q134.”Armed forces”
       Q135.”Parliament”
       Q136.”Governor General
       Q137.”Local government council”
       Q138.”News paper”
       Q139”television’
       Q140.radio”
       Q141.the people national party - PNP”
       Q142.”The Jamaica labour party – JLP

       Source: These questions were taken from a study conducted by Powell, Bourne, &
       Waller (2007, pp. 122-124).




                                                187
Appendix II



The researcher used all the questions listed below to proximity a measure for political

participation in Jamaica. These were taken from questions that relate to both conventional and

unconventional political participation. Thus, political participation index is the summation of the

19-question with which respondents were asked to indicate a choice. Each of the questions had

two options, (1) yes and (2) no.




      Did you voted in the last general elections?
      Have you ever joined a political party?
      Worked for a party or a candidate in an election?
      Attended a political meeting or an election rally?
      Attempted to persuade other to vote?
      Written a letter to a newspaper on a political issue?
      Phoned in to contribute your comments to a radio or television talk show, on political
       issues?
      Contributed your comments to an internet “blog: on a political issue?
      Personally sent a letter or message of protest, or support, to a political leader?
      Contacted a local governmental official or politician, to seek help with a personal
       problem you or your family had?
      Contacted a central governmental official or politician, on some general community
       problem?
      Contacted a central governmental official or politician, to seek held with a personal
       problem you or your family had?
      Contacted a local governmental official or politician, to seek help on some general
       community problem?
      Signed a petition?
      Blocked traffic in protest?
      Participated in an organized ‘strike’?
      Participated in an organized ‘boycott’?
      Participated in a peaceful march or public demonstration?
      Were you enumerated to vote when the last national elections were held for Parliament
       back in December 2002?




                                               188
                                                                                          Chapter


                                                                                                6




Examining Wellbeing of the Working Age Grouped Population in Jamaica.




       Introduction

       The    current   study   examines    the   relationship   between   economic    resources,

sociopsychological conditions and ecological factors on wellbeing of the working aged populace

in Jamaica using one of the World Bank’s Living Standard Measurement Surveys (LSMS) - the

Jamaica Survey of Living Conditions (JSLC). This study seeks to address three specific issues.

First, what are the factors that determine wellbeing of the working aged populace in Jamaica?

Second, how much of an impact do (1) economic resources; (2) sociopsychological conditions,

and (3) ecological factors have on wellbeing? Third, our aim is to see which set predisposed

factors can predict wellbeing based on its definition - whether or not wellbeing is conceptualized

as dysfunctions or income per capita.


       The issue of health has always fascinated humans. One of the reasons for this intrigue is

because of the relationship between health and mortality. And so, this explains their interest in

examining the phenomenon at great lengths.           This fascination of man resulted in them

establishing the absence of diseases as the yardstick in the measurement of health some time in

the past, i.e. 130 CE to 200 CE (Brannon and Feist 2004). The World Health Organization

(WHO), however, recognized that this was one-dimensional and offered an alternative

conceptual framework in the middle of the 1900s. According to the WHO (1948), health is not

                                               189
merely the absence of diseases or infirmity but it is the state of complete physical, social and

psychological wellbeing. The 20th century has seen a drastic change in the pattern of diseases

simultaneously with increased life expectancy in the world. Thus, should the emphasis be on

outcome of diseases as measure of health or should we be looking psychosocial and ecological

conditions as well as biological condition in assessing health?


       Within the context of a study carried out by Powell, Bourne and Waller (2007), they

found that 42.5% (n=568 out of 1,338) Jamaicans were concerned about the future employment

come the next 12-month; 59.4% (n=795 out of 1,338) remarked that ‘most people are essentially

not good and cannot be trusted; 57.4% 9n=767) indicated that their salaries and that of their

family cannot cover their expenses; 38.1%, n=509) reported that they believe that their future

economic situation will be about the same or less come the next 12-month. The surveyed

population’s socioeconomic reality is about average, this means that Jamaicans are experiencing

among other things changes in their sociopolitical conditions. Thus, what about their health

status and factors that impact on changes in health of Jamaicans? This research seeks to answer

this question.


       Health discourse: Life Expectancy, dysfunctions


       Globally, regionally and nationally life expectancy has more than doubled since 19th

century, and so has non-communicable diseases such as mellitus diabetes, heart diseases, cancer

and other disorders (see Brannon and Feist 2004; Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) 1995). In

1999 a report published by the World Health Organization (WHO) revealed that non-

communicable diseases accounted for 54 percent of the deaths in low-income countries

compared to 87 percent in high-income countries. Whereas communicable diseases, maternal


                                               190
and perinatal conditions accounted for 35 percent of the deaths in low to middle-income nations,

with only 6 of mortality in high-income states. A group of scholars have even examined

‘emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases’ (Barrett, Kuzawa, D.Dade, & Armelogos 1998),

and reported that these have captured the public’s thoughts as well as the awareness of the

scientific society. They argue that those diseases are due to ecological disruptions that have led

to warmer climates, more hurricanes and storms, and earthquakes (see also Pacione 2003). They

have outlined that in the last 15 years, diseases like dengue has been on the increase as well as

viral flues, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS. It follows, therefore, that irrespective of all the gains in

better nutrition, water supply, sanitation and medical technology, people are living longer but

necessarily healthier.


       Now that people have been living longer and will continue to live even longer, within the

context of increased non-communicable diseases due to lifestyle practices and other things, our

emphasis cannot be on longevity. In the 1990s, the World Bank in collaboration with the WHO

developed what is called the healthy life expectancy index to discount ‘bad health’ from

longevity (life expectancy) (World Bank 1993). The organizations found that 14 and 9 years

should be subtracted from the life expectancy of people who reside in developing and developed

countries respectively for the lost of quality years living with diseases. (See WHO 2003).

However based on the computation given by the WHO (2003), 9 years are taken from the life

expectancy of Jamaicans for ‘bad health’. Although the WHO’s work is widely used by scholars,

many people still use physical limitations (or diseases) to conceptual health. Then, there is the

discourse on what conditions influence health status based on the operational definition?


       Historical framework and Its bearings on the current work?



                                                191
       Although the WHO forwarded the perspective that health goes beyond the absence of

diseases (or dysfunctions) or ailments since 1946 (WHO1948), health are still predominantly

conceptualized in Jamaica as the ‘absence of diseases’ (or using dysfunctions or functional

limitations). Initially the WHO’s definition of health was seen as an elusive concept that was not

possible to be measured (Bok 2004). However this is changing since the start of the twentieth

century. Grossman (1972) developed a conceptual model to examine various socioeconomic

conditions influence on health of people in the world as a beginning to the practicality in

understanding what impact on health status.            Smith and Kington (1997) using functional

limitation as the definition for health expanded on Grossman model. In 2005 Hambleton,

Clarke, Broome, Fraser, Braithwaite and Hennis published a study which was commissioned by

Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) that researched elderly Barbadians (persons ages

60+). It was a nationally representative sample of 1,878 respondents (response rate was 80%,

n=1,508). The study was conducted between December 1999 and June 2001. Hambleton et al.’s

study (2005) used self-reported health status to measure health.


       “Does income matters in understanding health? If so, why?” (Marmot 2002:31) Income

is the passport to a better quality of life, but this does not go indefinitely. Not only is it possible

for money to buy health, but that health could matter for money. This is evident in poor

countries and the stark dissimilarities with rich nations in regard to quality of life of their

citizens. Using life expectancy to argue the point of quality of life, in the developed societies

their life expectancy is more than that of the lesser developing nations. Among the attributes of

riches are – (i) the purchase, use and discovery of advance medical technology; (ii) better

sanitation and public health; (iii) better quality water and food; among other things.


       There is no doubt that clean water is a vital ingredient of ‘good health’. But, many

                                                 192
developing societies do not have clean water. Oftentimes the people within those countries are

unable to purchase clean water, or even to make this availability for consumption if they know

where it is. The problems of poverty are not limited to clean water, but there are issues such as

(i) sanitation, (ii) nutrition, (iii) proper housing, (iv) material deprivation, (v) poorer technology,

information and education, (vi) the access to proper health care, and (vii) lower healthy life

expectancy (Marmot 2002). The reality of income buying health may be a rationale why

economists (Paul Streeten, Amartya Sen, Martin Ravallion and Ravi Kanbur, to name a few)

over the years have either used Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDP) to evaluate quality of

life (or standard of living) or examine the association between poverty and wellbeing. Another

reason is that wellbeing goes to the heart of development.


       Conceptual Framework for wellbeing


       In order to forward an understanding of what constitutes wellbeing or ill being, a system

must be instituted that will allow us to coalesce a measure that will unearth peoples’ sense of

overall quality of life from either economic-welfarism (see Becker et al. 2004) or psychological

theories (Diener, Suh, and Oishi, 1997; Kashdan 2004; Diener 2000). Economists like Smith and

Kington, and Stutzer and Frey as well as Engel believe that state of man’s wellbeing is not only

influenced by his/her biologic state but that is always dependent on his/her environment,

economic and sociologic conditions. Some studies and academics have sought to analyze this

phenomenon within a subjective manner by way of general personal happiness, self-rated

wellbeing, positive moods and emotions, agony, hopelessness, depression, and other

psychosocial indicators (Arthaud-day et al. 2005; Diener et al. 1999; Diener 1984).




                                                 193
       An economist (Easterlin) studying happiness and income, of all social scientist, found an

association between the two phenomena (Easterlin 2001a, 2001b), (see also Stutzer and Frey

2003). He began with a statement that “the relationship between happiness and income is

puzzling” (Easterlin 2001a, 465), and found people with higher incomes were happier than those

with lower incomes – he referred to as a correlation between subjective wellbeing and income

(see also, Stutzer and Frey 2003, 8). He did not cease at this juncture, but sought to justify this

realty, when he said that “those with higher income will be better able to fulfill their aspiration

and, and other things being equal, on an average, feel better off” (Easterlin 2001a, 472).

Wellbeing, therefore, can be explained outside of welfare theory and/or purely on objectification-

objective utility (See for example, Kimball and Willis 2005; Stutzer and Frey 2003).


       Whereas Easterlin found a bivariate relationship between subjective wellbeing and

income, Stutzer and Frey revealed that the association is a non-linear one. They concretized the

position by offering an explanation that “In the data set for Germany, for example, the simple

correlation is 0.11 based on 12, 979 observations” (Stutzer and Frey 2003, 9). Nevertheless, from

Stutzer and Frey’s findings, a position association does exist between subjective wellbeing and

income despite difference over linearity or non-linearity.


       In Arthaud-Day et al (2005) work, applying structural modeling, subjective well was

found to constitute “(1) cognitive evaluations of one's life (i.e., life satisfaction or happiness); (2)

positive affect; and (3) negative affect.” Subjective wellbeing, therefore, is the individual’s own

viewpoint. If an individual feels his/her life is going well, then we need to accept this as the

person’s reality. One of drawbacks to this measurement is, it is not summative, and it cannot be

generalized.



                                                  194
       Powell (1997) in a paper titled ‘Measures of quality of life and subjective wellbeing’

argued that psychological wellbeing is a component of quality of life. He believed that in this

measurement in particular for the older, must include Life Satisfaction Index, as this approach

constitutes a number of items based on “cognitively based attitudes toward life in general and

more emotion-based judgment”(Powell 1997).          Powell addressed this from two-dimensions.

Where those means are relatively constant over time while in seeking to unearth changes in the

short-run, ‘for example an intervention’, procedures that mirror changed states may be

preferable. This can be assessed by way of a twenty-item Positive and Negative Affect Schedule

or from a ten-item Philadelphia Geriatric Centre Positive Affect and Negative Affect Scale

(Powell 1997).


       In a reading titled ‘Objective measures of wellbeing and the cooperation production

problem’, Gaspart (1998) provided arguments that support the rational behind the objectification

of wellbeing. His premise for objective quality of life is embedded within the difficulty as it

relates to consistency of measurement when subjectivity is the construct of operationalization.

This approach takes precedence because an objective measurement of concept is of exactness as

non-objectification; therefore, the former receives priority over any subjective preferences. He

claimed that for wellbeing to be comparable across individuals, population and communities,

there is a need for empiricism.


       Gaspart discussed a number of economic theories (Equal Income Walrasian equilibria,

objective egalitarianism, Pareto efficiency; Wefarism), which saw the paper expounding on a

number of mathematical theorems in order to quantify quality of life. Such a stance proposes

that humans are predictable, rational from which we are able to objectify their plans. The very

axioms cited by Gaspart emphasized particular set of assumptions that he used finalizing a

                                              195
measurement for wellbeing for man who is a complex social animal. The researcher points to a

sentence that was written by Gaspart that speaks to the difficulty of objective quality of life; he

wrote, “So its objectivism is already contaminated by post-welfarism, opening the door to a

mixed approach, in which preferences matter as well as objective wellbeing” (Gaspart 1998).

Another group of scholars emphasized the importance of measuring wellbeing outside a

welfarism and/or purely objectification, when they said that “Although GDP per capita is usually

used as a proxy for the quality of life in different countries, material gain is obviously only one

of many aspects of life that enhance economic wellbeing” (Becker et al. 2004, 1), and that

wellbeing depends on both the quality and the quantity of life lived by the individual (see also

Easterlin 2001). This is affirmed in a study carried out by Lima and Nova (2006), that found

happiness, general life satisfaction, social acceptance and actualizations are all directed related to

GDP per capita for a geographic location (see Lima and Nova 2006, 9). Even though in Europe

these were found not to be causal, income provides some predictability of subjective wellbeing

more so in poor countries than in wealthy nations. (See Lima and Nova 2006, 11)


       It should be understood that GDP per capita speaks of the market economic resources

which are produced domestically within a particular geographic space. So increased production

in goods and/or services may generate excess which can then be exported, and vital products

(such as vaccination, sanitary products, vitamins, iron and other commodities) can be purchased

that is able to improve the standard of living and quality of the life of the same people over the

previous period. One scholar (Caldwell 1999) has shown that life expectancies are usually higher

in countries with high GDP per capita, which means that income is able to purchased better

quality products, which indirectly affects the length of years lived by people. This realty could

explain why in economic recession, war and violence, when the economic growth is lower (or


                                                 196
even non-existence) there is a lower life expectancy. Some of the reasons for these justifications

are government’s unavailability to provide for an extensive population in the form of nutritional

care, public health and health-care services. Good health is, therefore, linked to economic

growth, which further justifies why economists use GDP per capita as an objective valuation of

standard of living; and why income should indefinitely be a component in the analysis of health

status. There is another twist to this discourse as a country’s GDP per capita may be low, but the

life expectancy is high because health care is free for the population. Despite this fact, material

living standards undoubtedly affect the health status and wellbeing of a people, as well as the

level of females’ educational attainment.


       Ringen (1995) in a paper titled ‘Wellbeing, measurement, and Preferences’ argued that

non-welfarist approaches to measuring wellbeing are possible despite its subjectivity. The direct

approach for wellbeing computation through the utility function according to Ringen is not a

better quantification as against the indirect method (i.e. using social indicators). The stance

taken was purely from the vantage point that utility is a function ‘not of goods and preferences’

but of products and ‘taste’. The constitution of wellbeing is based on choices. Choices are a

function of individual assets and options. With this premise, Ringen forwarded arguments which

show that people’s choices are sometimes ‘irrational’, which is the make for the departure from

empiricism.


       Wellbeing can be computed from either the direct (i.e. consumption expenditure) or the

indirect (i.e. disposable income) approach (Ringen 1995, 8). The former is calculated using

consumption expenditure, whereas the latter uses disposable income. Rigen noted that in order

to use income as a proxy for wellbeing, we must assume that (1) income is the only resource, and

(2) all persons operate in identical market places. On the other hand, the direct approach has two

                                               197
key assumptions. These are (1) what we can buy is what we can consume and (2) and that what

we can consume, is an expression of wellbeing. From Rigen’s monograph, the assumptions are

limitations.


       In presenting potent arguments in favour of non-empiricism in the computation of

wellbeing, Ringen highlighted a number of drawbacks to welfarism. According to Ringen:


       Utility is not a particular good criterion for wellbeing since it is a function not only of
       circumstances and preferences, but also of expectation. In the measurement of wellbeing,
       respect for personal preferences is best sought in non-welfarist approaches that have the
       quality of preference neutrality; …As soon, as preferences are brought into the concept of
       wellbeing cannot but be subjective. (Ringen 1995, 11)



The difficulties in using empiricism to quantify wellbeing has not only be forwarded by


Ringen as O’Donnell and Tait (2003) were equally forthwith in arguing there were challenges in

measuring quality of life quantitatively. O’Donnell and Tait believed that health is a primary

indicator of wellbeing. Hence, self-rated health status is a highly reliable proxy of health which

“successfully crosses cultural lines” (O’Donnell and Tait 2003, 20). They argued self-reported

health status can be used as they found that all the respondents of chronic diseases indicated that

their health was very poor.


       In measuring quality of life, some writers have thought it fitting to use Gross Domestic

Product per capita (i.e. GDP per capita) to which they referred to as standard of living (Lipsey

1999; Summers and Heston 1995; Hanson 1986). According to Summers and Heston (1995),

“The index most commonly used until now to compare countries' material wellbeing is their

GDP   POP' .”   The United Nations Development Programme has expanded on the material

wellbeing definition forwarded primarily by economists, and has included life expectancy and

                                               198
educational attainment (Human Development Reports, 2005, p. 341) and other social indicators

(Diener 1984; Diener and Suh 1997). This operational definition of wellbeing has become

increasingly popular in the last twenty-five years, but given the expanded definition of health as

cited by the WHO, wellbeing must be measured in a more comprehensive manner than using

material wellbeing as seen by economists.


       GDP is the coalesced sum of all economic resources of people in certain topography, so

this does not capture the psychosocial state of the man in attaining the valued GDP. By this

approach, we may arrive at a value that is higher than in previous periods, making it seem as

though people are doing very well. However, with this increase in GDP, this single component is

insufficient to determine wellbeing. As the increase in GDP may be by (1) more working hours,

(2) higher rates of pollutions and environmental conditions, (3) psychological fatigue, (4) social

exclusion, (5) human ‘burn out’, (6) reduction in freedom, (7) unhappiness, (8) chronic and acute

diseases and so forth.     Summers and Heston (1995) note that “However, GDP POP is an

inadequate measure of countries' immediate material wellbeing, even apart from the general

practical and conceptual problems of measuring countries' national outputs.” Generally, from

that perspective, the measurement of quality of life is, therefore, highly economic and excludes

the psychosocial factors, and if quality of life extends beyond monetary objectification.


       Diener (2000) in an article titled ‘Subjective Wellbeing: The Science of Happiness and a

Proposal for a National Index’ theorizes that the objectification of wellbeing is embodied within

satisfaction of life. His points to a construct of wellbeing called happiness. Diener’s theorizing

on wellbeing encapsulates more than the marginalized stance of other academics and researchers

who enlightened the discourse with economic, psychosocial, or subjective indicators. He shows

that quality of life is multifaceted and coalescing economic, social, psychological and subjective

                                               199
indicators is far more reaching in ultimately measuring wellbeing. This work shows a construct

that can be used to operationalize a more multidimensional variable, wellbeing, which widens

the tenet of previous operational definition on the subject. From the theorizing of various

writers, it is clear that wellbeing is multidimensional, multidisciplinary and multispatial. Some

writers emphasize the environmental components of subject matter (Lui 1976; Pacione 1984;

Smith 1973), psychosocial aspect (Clarke and Ryff 2000) and from a social capital vantage point

(Glaeser 2001; Putnam 1995; Woolcock 2001).


       In seeking to operationalize wellbeing, the United Nations Development Programme

(UNDP) in the Human Development Reports (1997, 2000) conceptualized human development

as a “process of widening people’s choice as well as the level of achieve wellbeing”. Embedded

within this definition is the emphasis of materialism in interpreting quality of life. From the

UNDP’s Human Development (1993), the human development index (HDI) “…is a normative

measure of a desirable standard of living or a measure of the level of living”, which speaks to the

subjectivity of this valuation irrespective of the inclusion of welfarism (i.e. gross domestic

product (GDP) per capita). The HDI constitute adjusted educational achievement (E= a 1 *

literacy + a 2 * years of schooling, where a1, = 2/3 and a2 = 1/3), life expectancy (demographic
                                                      1-e
modeling) and income (W (9y) = 1/ (1 - e) * y           ). The function W(y) denotes “utility or

wellbeing derived from income”. This income component of the HDI is a national average (i.e.

GDP per capita, which is them adjusted for income distribution (W*(y) = W(y) {1 - G}), where

G = Gini coefficient). In wanting to disaggregate the HDI within a country, the UNDP (1993)

noted that data are not available for many countries, which limits the possibility.


       An economist writing on ‘objective wellbeing’ summarized the matter simply by stating

that “…one can adopt a mixed approach, in which the satisfaction of subjective preferences is

                                                200
taken as valuable too” (Gaspart 1998, 111) (see also Cummin1997a, 2001), which is the premise

upon which this paper will adhere in keeping with this multidimensional construct, wellbeing.

Wellbeing, therefore, for this paper will be the overall health status of people, which include

access to and control over material resources, environmental and psychosocial conditions, and

per capita consumption (see WHO 1948; Pacione 2003).


       Wellbeing Models


       The paper’s aim is to establish whether or not particular predisposed variables can be

used to predict health status in Jamaica. Thus, the underpinning conceptual frameworks that

guide this study are Smith and Kington’s work (1997), which is an expansion of the Grossman’s

model (1972), Hambleton et al.’s study (2005) and Bourne’s model (2007).


       Grossman (1972) established a standard economic model of health status, which is

referred to as the ‘health production function’: -


       H t = ƒ (H t-1 , G o , B t , MC t , ED)                                               [1]


       Current Health in time t, H t, is a function of cost of medical care, (MC t), G o is family

background and genetic endowments, Bt                  is   the adoption of good personal health behaviours

(exercise) and the avoidance of bad actions (such as smoking, excessive drinking of alcohol);

ED is and vector of family education levels.


       Smith and Kington furthered the work of Grossman. In addition to the production

function, they added a budget constraint and some other predisposed variables, which they solve

to give:


       H t = H* (H t-1 , P o , ED, Et , R t , A t , G o )                             [2]

                                                            201
       Eq. [2], health enters their model in two ways, creating a ‘possible two-way feedback

between health and income. Thus, ‘good health’ is as a result of people desire; and greater

incomes allows for the purchase of more health. Therefore Eq. [2] expresses current health (H t ),

as a function of cost of medical care (P mc ), past prices and past incomes (P o ), education of each

family member (ED), retirement-related income (R t ), asset income (A t ), family background and

genetic endowments (G o ) and past stock of health (H t-1 ). The modification were based on a

research which was conducted in 1994 of some 6,052 households (n=8,223) of ages 70 or over.

It should be noted that like Grossman, Smith and Kington used functional limitation as the

operational definition for health. The functional limitation index (or dysfunctions index) is the

summation of 11 questions that asked about ability to perform a series of activities. The index

ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 denotes no limitation in any activity and higher scores mean worse

functioning.


       Bourne’s study (2007) used a similar approach like that taken by Smith and Kington.

The predisposed variables that were used in Bourne’s model are taken from Smith and Kingston,

other studies (Diener, & Suh 1997; Diener, &. Emmons 1984) and Hambleton et al.’s research.

Other studies will not be discussed throughout this paper, as their influence on the research was

minimal. The primary similarity between Bourne’s work and that Smith and Kington’s model is

the use of economic modeling.


       Bourne expanded on the operational definition of health, and used economic model to

establish determinant of wellbeing of elderly Jamaicans (ages 65+). It is one that combines

functional health status and economic resources to create a wellbeing index, which ranges from -

2 to 14. The wellbeing index was created by –



                                                202
                                                                 3                        5

                     Wi 19 is defined as ½ [∑MR ji ] - ½[Σ Hji ]

                                                     j=1               j=1



           The wellbeing index of person i (W i ), is one-half of the summation of three material

economic resources (MR ji ) of person i, subtracted from one-half of summing answers based on 5

health conditions, H ji .


           From Bourne’s study, the final model was as follows –


           W i =ƒ (P mc , ED, A i , E n, MS, AR, P, N, O, T, V)                     [3]


           W i is wellbeing of the Jamaican elderly i, is a function of cost of medical (health) care

(P mc ), the educational level of the individual, elderly (A i , where i is an individual elderly), the

environment (En), gender of the respondents (G), union status (MS), area of residents (AR),

positive affective conditions (P), negative affective conditions (N), average occupancy per room

(O), property ownership, (T), and crime and victimization, (V).                  Unlike Smith and Kington,

and Grossman’s work, Bourne’s work provided us with the degree of importance of all the

variables in Eq. [3] 20. He found that of the 12 predisposed variables that were tested, 10 were

found to be statistically significant (see Eq. [3]); with the model explaining 36.8% of the

variation in wellbeing from those selected factors (F statistic=22.493, p value < 0.001). Of the

10 predictors of wellbeing identified in Eq. [3], the six most impacting on quality of life were as

follows – (1) average occupancy per room (β= -0.270, i.e. crowding); (2) area of residence (β=


19
  The index ranges from a low of -1 to a high of 14. Scores from 0 to 3 denotes very low, 4 to 6 indicates low; 7 to
10 is moderate and 11 to 14 means high wellbeing.
20
     Only the significant variables were used in Eq. [3]

                                                           203
0.227); (3) cost of medical care (β= 0.184); (4) positive affective conditions (β= 0.138); (5)

property ownership excluding a home (β=-0.135), and (6) age and negative affective conditions

(β= - 0.129). The sample size for this study was 2,320 elderly people.


       Another study that guides this paper is Hambleton et al.’s work (2005).                 In a Pan

American Health Organization’s (PAHO) survey conducted between December 1999 and June

2000 of some 1,508 (out of a sample of 1,878) elderly respondents (ages 60 years and over) in

Barbados, the research offered a different perspective to that which was forwarded by Grossman,

Smith and Kington, and Bourne.


       Hambleton et al, using logistic regression, found that historical, current socioeconomic,

lifestyle behaviour and current diseases accounted for 38.2% of the variation in self-reported

health status. They reported that current diseases accounted for 33.5% of the total explained

variation in health compared to lifestyle practices 7.1%, current socioeconomic conditions 4.1%,

and historical factors 5.2%.


       Like Grossman, and Smith and Kington, Hambleton et al utilized self-reported health

status in operationalizing health. Even though Hambleton et al.’s study did not identify an

economic model unlike Bourne and the others, the principle was the same as he used logistic

regression with which they could have written a model. What was new in their work? They

included nutrition in childhood, health in childhood, household crowding, living alone, body

mass index, waist circumference, and depression scale index.


       Thus, the current study will test these two functions:


       WAi =ƒ (H o , P mc , ED, A i , G, E n, SS i , US, AR, P, O, N, HS i , Ht i , C, Yi )   [4]



                                                    204
        W Bi =ƒ (H o , P mc , ED, A i , G, E n, MS, AR, P, N, HS i , Ht i , F i )       [5]


       Eq. [4] is wellbeing (or quality of life) of individual i is a function of those predisposed

variable. In this case, wellbeing is measured by functional limitation used through dysfunctions.


       where Ho is the past dysfunctions, cost of medical care, P mc , the educational level of the
       individual, ED, age, A i, the environment E n, gender of the respondents, G, union status
       (US), house tenure (Ht), area of residents AR, positive affective conditions (P), negative
       affective conditions (N), household crowding – average occupancy per room (O), HS i is
       person i seeking medical care, Crime, (C), and Yi is income per capita of individual i
       (proxy consumption per capita). Note, there is an inverse relationship between increased
       dysfunctions and wellbeing.



       On the other hand, in Eq. [5], wellbeing (or quality) of person i is function certain
       variable. The difference between Eqs. [4] and [5] is in the latter, wellbeing is defined in
       terms of economic wellbeing (i.e. income), and dysfunctions of individual i, (F i ); Ho is
       consumption per capita when all other things are held constant. Note here that Eq. [4]
       from henceforth will be referred to as Wellbeing Model 4 and Eq. [5] will be Wellbeing
       Model 5.



Rationale for study


Within the context of Powell, Bourne and Waller’s work (2007), there seems to be social reality

that many Jamaicans are not doing as good as some people would like to believe. Their study

was a nationally representative survey of 1,338 respondents, which seeks to gather information

on Jamaicans political culture as well as to collect particular data on sociological conditions such

as wellbeing. The survey was conducted between July and August 2006 by the Centre for

Leadership and Governance, Department of Government, the University of the West Indies at

Mona. The research found that 42.5% (n=568) sample respondents were concerned about the

possibility of being unemployed in the future come the next 12 months; 61.5% (n=828) remarked


                                                     205
that their salaries are unable to cover their expenses, 59.4% (n=795) said that most people cannot

be trusted with 7.4% saying that you can trust the government, and approximately 20% of

Jamaicans reported that current economic situation is either ‘fairly bad’ or ‘very bad’, we need to

understand how various factors impact on the health status of populace.


Methods and Data


The research design for this study is an explanatory one. This study utilizes cross-sectional data

taken from a reputable institution that collects data (i.e. the data 2002) in order to identify,

explain and examining the Wellbeing of the Working Aged Population in Jamaica. The use

of multivariate analysis to generate a model for the phenomenon clearly indicates a mathematical

demographic approach. The surveyed population was 14,299 respondents ages 15 to 64 year,

with a mean age of 34.06 years ± 13.48 years. Of the total surveyed population, 51.1% are

females (n=7,310) compared to 48.9% males (n=6,989).


Wellbeing (i.e. functional limitations) H Ai : Here wellbeing is conceptualized as functional

status. This variable is created based on answers to ailments, diseases, injuries, accidents and

other dysfunctions that result in functional limitations.    The health index, using functional

limitation is summing responses to all who answered to 5 health conditions questions. With

regard to the ailments, from advanced to basic dysfunctions each was given equal weight. The

ranges from 0 to 4, 0 is no limitation and higher scores indicate worse functioning. The final

variable was a dummy value, 1=functional limitation, 0=no functional limitation (or

dysfunctions).


Wellbeing (consumption per capita), H Bi : The total amount which is expended on good and

services divided by the number of person(s) within that dwelling unit.


                                               206
Table 1: Sociodemographic profile of respondents, by gender
                              Male                        Female
Area of residence:
  Rural areas                 61.3%                       56.7%
 Other Towns                  25.6%                       27.6%
 KMA                          13.1%                       15.7%
Count                         6989                        7310
Education Level:
 Primary and below            13.4%                       12.6%
 Secondary                    84.7%                       79.3%
 Tertiary                     4.8%                        8.0%
Count                         6006                        6174
Age – mean (SD)               33.97 yrs (13.61 yrs.)      34.14 yrs (13.36yrs.)
Consumption per capita:
mean (SD)                     $84,962.67 ($90,497.55) $78,943.47($98,620.13)
median                        $59,806.61                  $57,112.61
mode                          $42,064.69                  $12,637.73



The mean age of the sampled respondents (n=14,299) was 34.96 years ± 13.48 years, with the

average age of both sexes being approximately the same (Table 1). Based on Table 1, on an

average male’s consumption is $6,019.20 more than that of their female counterparts, with the

mode amount spent by male being 3 times compared to the most frequently amount spent by

females ($12,637.73). Majority of the sampled population had a most secondary level education,

with approximately 2 times the number of females being educated at the post-secondary level.




                                             207
Table 2: Wellbeing (functional limitation) of sample, by gender
        Description                           Sex of individual
                                              Male       Female

               Four conditions
                                             0.0%       0.1%
               Three conditions
                                             1.0%       1.9%
Health
conditions     Two conditions
                                             5.4%       9.9%
               One conditions
                                             5.7%       5.7%

               No condition
                                             87.8%      82.4%


Total                                        6822       7115




Of the sampled population (14,299), the response rate for the cross tabulation between wellbeing

(dysfunctions) and gender is 97.5%. Of the male respondents 87.8% of them reported no

physical dysfunction. However of the female respondents, 82.4% of them indicated that they

had no ailment. Based on Table 2, more females reported a health condition in all dysfunctions

category with the exception of one dysfunction.




                                              208
Table 3: Wellbeing (Functional limitation caused by dysfunctions), by Age Cohort
                                           AGE COHORT

                                           15      – 24 - 34 35           – 45       –
  Detail                                   24yrs     yrs     44yrs          64yrs


               4                           0.0%       0.1%        0.0%       0.2%


               3                           0.7%       1.6%        1.5%       2.4%
 HEALTH
 CONDITI       2
                                           4.1%       5.7%        6.8%       15.0%
 ONS
               1
                                           3.7%       6.4%        7.0%       6.5%

               0

                                           91.5%      86.3%       84.8%      75.9%




 Count                                     4190       3415        2986       3346



In Table 3, self-reported health (dysfunctions or ailments) was the most reported in the oldest age

cohort (45 to 64 years), with the youngest age cohort reporting the least health conditions.




                                                209
Based on Table 4, we tested the function for wellbeing (i.e. dysfunctions):


       WAi =ƒ (H o , P mc , ED, A i , G i , E n , SS i , US, AR, P, N, O, HS i , C, Ht i , Y i )


from which we have derived a final model as follows:


       WAi =ƒ (H o , US i , Ht i , SS i , AR, P, N, O, G i , HS i , C, Y i, A i )




                                                       210
Table 4: Logistic regression showing the association between predisposed variables and
wellbeing (dysfunctions) - Wellbeing Model 4

                    Dependent: Wellbeing (i.e. Dysfunctions)

                     B           S.E.       Wald          df     Sig.       Exp(B)
Married                 -.125    .077       2.627         1      .105       .882
Common-law              -.268    .085       10.022        1      .002       .765
Visiting                -.358    .095       14.240        1      .000       .699
None                    .103     .112       .854          1      .355       1.109
Reference:
(single)
House tenure1-own       -.271    .102       7.084         1      .008       .763
House tenure2 -rent     -.102    .078       1.682         1      .195       .903
Reference: (squatting)
Other Towns             -.133    .070       3.634         1      .057       .875
KMA                     -.013    .087       .023          1      .880       .987
Reference:       (rural
areas)
Health seeking          2.957    .106       780.414       1      .000       19.237
Environment             -.083    .061       1.809         1      .179       .921
Secondary               -.082    .086       .909          1      .340       .922
Tertiary                -.106    .141       .563          1      .453       .899
Reference: (primary)
Social Support          .155     .058       7.227         1      .007       1.168
Gender                  -.424    .058       52.833        1      .000       .655
Household Crowding -.047         .026       3.273         1      .070       .954
Crime                   .010     .003       9.686         1      .002       1.010
Negative Affective      .051     .009       32.448        1      .000       1.052
Positive Affective      -.057    .012       20.560        1      .000       .945
Age                     .027     .003       100.137       1      .000       1.027
Consumption             .000     .000       53.155        1      .000       1.000
Constant                -2.635   .193       185.694       1      .000       .072
-2 Log likelihood = 8441.68

Nagelkerke R Square = 0.216 (i.e. 21.6%)
Chi-square = 1535.78, ρ value ≤ 0.001
Wald = 4275.92, ρ value ≤ 0.001,
N= 11,457




                                           211
Based on Table 5, we tested the function for wellbeing (i.e. consumption per capita):



W Bi =ƒ ƒ(H o , P mc , ED, A i , G, En , US, AR, P, N, HS i , F i )



which produced a final model: W Bi =ƒ (H o , P mc , ED, G, E n, US, AR, P, N, A i )




                                                     212
Table 5: Results of linear regression analysis showing the association between predisposed
variables and consumption per capita (log transformed) - Wellbeing Model 5

                              Dependent variable: Health (using per capita consumption)
Predictors:
                              B value    β coefficient   95% CI                    ρ
                                                         Lower        Upper
                                                         bound        bound
Constant                      10.542                     10.165       10.919
Union Status:
  Married                     .040       .024             -.066         .145        .459
  Common law                  .129       .065             .011          .247        .033
  Visiting                    .069       .028             -.074         .212        .344
  None                        -.193      -.063            -.362         -.023       .026
Single (reference)
Functional limitation***      -.036      -.024            -.112         .041        .360
Physical environment          -.205      -.123            -.292         -.118       .000
Seeking medical care          .043       .027             -.039         .125        .308
Area of residence:
  Other Towns                 .270       .148             .173          .366        .000
  KMA                         .445       .190             .319          .570        .000
 Rural area (reference)
Individual Education:
  Secondary                   .059       .035             -.049         .167        .281
  Tertiary                    .464       .139             .267          .661        .000
Primary (reference)
Social support*               .004       .002             -.077         .085        .929
Gender**                      .115       .070             .030          .201        .008
Logged household crowding -.490          -.422            -.557         -.423       .000
Logged cost of medical care .083         .142             .052          .114        .000
Psychological conditions:
   Negative affective         -.016      -.066            -.029         -.003       .018
   Positive affective         .030       .091             .012          .048        .001
Age                           -.004      -.065            -.008         .000        .057
N=960
R = 0.625
R2 = 0.391
Adjusted R2 = 0.379
F [18,911] = 32.46, p≤ 0.001
* Social support is dummy variable, 1=living with other people in the household, 0=otherwise

** Gender is a dummy variable, 1=male, 0=female

*** Functional limitation is a dummy value, 1=reported dysfunction(s), 0= reported no
dysfunction(s)



                                             213
Discussion



Western medicine has been emphasizing dysfunctions as the primary cause for functional

limitation, ill-health or ‘poor’ wellbeing. Owing to unidirectional focus of health, health care

practitioners predominantly has been treating the outcome instead of multidimensional approach

to health care. Based on the WHO’s definition of health, it incorporate biological factors,

socioeconomic, psychological and environmental conditions as agents of health or wellbeing. In

the 1950s, Dr. George Engel, a psychiatrist, argued that doctors should not treat mental patients

only for the biological conditions as the human body is influenced by biological, psychosocial

and environmental conditions. He, like Amartya Sen, believed that we should address the means

or the inputs instead of the ends or the outcome, which in this case is the dysfunction.    Can

psychosocial and ecological conditions impact on dysfunctions, or consumption per capita?


       The same predisposed psychosocial and ecological conditions will be in Model 4 and 5.

There will be a few alterations to factors depending on the Model that will be used to test the

hypothesis. In Model 4, wellbeing is operationalized as either having a physical dysfunction or

having more than one health conditions, which will reducing dysfunctions or causing functional

limitation. In this case, reduced dysfunctions means increased wellbeing. Model 5, on the other

hand, captures consumption per capita as operational definition for wellbeing. Whereas Model 4

is a subjective measure of wellbeing (or ill-health), Model 5 is an objective assessment of

individual wellbeing. It should be noted here that the final model excludes all the variables

which are not significant, because they have contribution to the overall explanation.


       Based on Model 4


               WAi =ƒ (H o , MR i , Ht i , SS i , AR, P, N, O, G i , HS i , C, Y i )
                                                     214
       Model 4 explains 21.6% of the variance in wellbeing. Union status, house tenure, health

care seeking behaviour, social support, gender, crime, negative and positive psychological

conditions, age and consumption per capita were found to be predictors of wellbeing (proxy

dysfunctions). The six most influential factors in descending order are health care seeking

behaviour (Wald statistic = 780.414, p ≤ 0.001); age of respondents (Wald statistic = 100.137, p

≤ 0.001); consumption per capita (Wald statistic = 53.155, p ≤ 0.001), gender (Wald statistic

=52.833, p ≤ 0.001); negative affective conditions (Wald statistic = 32.448, p ≤ 0.001), and

positive affective conditions (Wald statistic =20.560, p ≤ 0.001). An important finding in this

paper is that income per capita (proxy consumption per capita) is a predictor of wellbeing, but a

change in income per capita does not change the odd of wellbeing (B=0.000, p≤ 0.001).


       The older people get, there dysfunctions will increase by 1.03. Based on (Exp (B) =

19.24) for health care seeking behaviour, people who seek health care are 19 times more likely to

increase their wellbeing compared to those who do not. On to gender of the respondents, males

have lower dysfunctions than their females counterparts (Exp (B) = 0.66).


       There are some interesting results from data in regard to union status. Although union

status is statistically significant, the comparisons are between common law and dysfunctions

(Wald statistic =10.022, p ≤ 0.05) with single being the reference group, and visiting union and

wellbeing (Wald statistic =14.240, p ≤ 0.001) with single being the referent group. The data

reveals that being in a common-law relationship reduces ones wellbeing (Exp (B) = 0.77, with

reference to those in single union.      Those who are in visiting relationships have lower

dysfunctions than those in single relationship (Exp (B) = 0.7).




                                               215
       Based on the data, house tenure was statistically related to dysfunctions. However, the

predictor was between only those people who own their own house with reference and those who

squatted. The data revealed that those who own their homes wellbeing reduces, with reference to

squatters (Exp (B) = 0.763). Statistically, there is no difference the dysfunctions of someone who

pays rent compared to another who squats.


       From Model 4, the data revealed that social support is a predictor of wellbeing (Wald

statistic =7.227, p ≤ 0.001). A positive B value of 0.155 indicates that having social support

increases ones wellbeing. Furthermore, someone who has social support’s wellbeing is 1.168

higher compared to another person who does not.


       Another important finding within this model is that there is not relationship between

wellbeing and educational attainment of the individual. Thus, going to college is not good for

ones wellbeing, if wellbeing is conceptualized using dysfunctions. Given that Model 4’s

operational definition of wellbeing is dysfunctions, the data shows that some who is experiencing

negative affective conditions 1.1 times more likely to have dysfunctions compared to someone

who is not. On the contrary, an individual who is experiencing positive affective conditions will

see a reduction in dysfunctions (Exp (B) = 0.94, with a B= -0.057). Is there any difference

between the predictors in Model 4 and that of Model 5?


       From Model 5 -


       W Bi =ƒ (H o , P mc , ED, G, E n, US, AR, P, N)


       The primary finding of Model 5 is - using individual income per capita (i.e. proxy

individual consumption per capita) – that the model explains 39.1% of the variance in wellbeing.

Model 5 explains 17.5% more of what constitute wellbeing than Model 4. This means that it is

                                                216
better to operationalized wellbeing from an objective perspective than using self-reported

dysfunctions.


       Some additional results from Model 5 will be presented hereafter. The most influential

factor using Model 5 is household crowding (β= -0.422, p ≤ 0.001). The six most influential

factors of wellbeing using Model 5 are as follows household crowding (i.e. average occupancy

per room) (β= -0.422); area of residence (β= 0.190 or 0.148, p ≤ 0.001); cost of medical care (β=

0.142, p ≤ 0.001); college education (β= 0.139, p ≤ 0.001); environment (β= -00.123, p ≤ 0.001)

and positive affective conditions (β= 0.091, p ≤ 0.001). Based on the negative value for some of

the Bs, it follows that there is an inverse relationship between household crowding (proxy

consumption per capita), and the environment and wellbeing. With regard to Model 5, unlike

Model 4, post-secondary education - when reference to primary and below education - is ‘good’

for wellbeing (β= 0.139, p ≤ 0.001). Although dysfunctions result in functional limitation, it

does affect wellbeing for the working aged populace in Jamaica (β= -0.024, p ≤ 0.360), when

wellbeing is operationalized as income (i.e. proxy consumption per capita).


   Concluding Discussion

   Dysfunctions are commonly used to evaluate health, functional limitation and/or wellbeing in

Western societies, which is profoundly highlighted in work of Ali, Christian and Chung (2007).

Thus, medical disorders (diseases or health conditions) are the primary reasons why many people

seek health care. This behaviour emphasizes the end (i.e. the ailment) instead of what explains

the outcome, which is preventative care. Because health and/or wellbeing is popularized by the

pharmaceutical industry as the indicator of ill-health, this study has shown that functional

limitation is indeed influence by psychosocial and ecological conditions, which is also the case

when health or wellbeing is measure using consumption per capita. We are cognizant that

                                              217
people may (or may not) under-report their consumption or inaccuracies due to recall. However,

from Model 5, it is still a better proxy of wellbeing from the explanatory powers of the indicators

than using self-reported dysfunctions.      Self-reported dysfunctions suffers from the same

limitations as consumptions, and so our emphasis on diseases (or self-reported dysfunctions)

when its predictive capacity is narrower than consumption per capita cannot be the way to go in

understanding health or health care. This is within the context that quality of life (or wellbeing

or health) is influenced by biological, psychosocial and environmental conditions (Bourne 2007;

Sumner 2004; Pacione 2003; WHO 1948; Smith and Kington 1997).


   Thus, the treatment of patient care should not be solely address from a biological perspective,

as a multidimensional approach that include socioeconomic, psychological and ecological

conditions in additional to dysfunctions is a better approach as this is greater in depth. The

current study has shown that the using particular predisposed variables to examine self-reported

dysfunctions has a lower predictive power than if wellbeing were conceptualized from an

objective approach (i.e. using consumption per capita). Although income is a predictor of

wellbeing, the current work shows that increased income does mean a change in the odds of

wellbeing.


   A key finding of this study is – using dysfunctions to measure wellbeing (or health) - offers

less of an explanation of wellbeing than if we were to use income. This was evident in the

difference between the explanatory power of Model 4 or Model 5. The latter Model explains

39.1% of the variance in wellbeing compared to the former Model that only explains 21.6%,

which is a difference of 17.5%.




                                               218
   In concluding, whether or not self-reported dysfunctions or consumption per capita is used to

conceptualized wellbeing (or health), the current study has shown that socioeconomic,

psychological and ecological conditions affect wellbeing. The paper does not claim to provide

all the answers, but it is a start in the understanding of how wellbeing should be conceptualized,

measured and treated from here onwards. We are forwarding that health should not be limited to

consumption as this excludes physical conditions of the individual or should be narrowly defined

as dysfunctions as this process focuses only on end and avoids the many indicators that

contribute to this outcome.




                                               219
Reference

Ali A., Christie D., & Chung E. (2007). Funny Turns in an Elderly Man. West Indian Medical
    Journal, 56:376-379.

Arthaud-Day M.L., Rode J.C., Mooney C.H., & Near J.P. (2005). The subjective wellbeing
   construct: A test of its convergent, discriminant, and factorial validity. Social Indicators
   Research, 74:445-476.

Barrett R., Kuzawa C.W., McDade T., & Armelagos G.J. (1998). Emerging and re-emerging
        infectious diseases: The Third Epidemiologic Transition. Annual Review of
        Anthropology, 27:247-71.

Becker G.S., Philipson T.J., & Soares R.R. (2003). The Quantity and Quality of the Life and the
       Evolution of World Inequality. NBER Working Paper 9765, National Bureau of
       Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.

Bok S. (2004). Rethinking the WHO definition of health. Harvard Center for Population and
       Developmental Studies: Working Paper Series, 14(7).

Bourne P. (2007). Using the biopsychosocial model to evaluate the wellbeing of the Jamaica
      Elderly. [Abstract]. West India Medical Journal 56(Suppl 3):39-40.

Brannon L., & Feist J. (2007). Health psychology. An introduction to behavior and health 6th ed.
    Los Angeles: Thomson Wadsworth.

Caldwell J.C. (1999). Good health for many: The ESCAP region, 1950-2000. Asia-Pacific
     Population Journal, 14:21-38.

Diener E. (1984). Subjective wellbeing. Psychological Bulletin, 95:542-575.

Diener E. (2000). Subjective Well-Being: The Science of Happiness and a Proposal for a
   National Index. American Psychological Association, 55:34-43.

Diener E., & Suh E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social subjective indicators.
   Social Indicators Research, 40:189-216.

Diener E., & Suh E. (1997). National differences in subjective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E.
   Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Understanding well-being: Scientific perspectives on
   enjoyment and suffering. New York: Russell-Sage.

Diener E., & Emmons R.A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of
       Personality and Social Psychology, 47:1105-1117

Diener E., Suh E., & Oishi S. (1997). Recent findings on subjective wellbeing. Journal of
   Clinical Psychology.

                                              220
Diener E., Larson R.J, Levine S., & Emmon R.A. (1999). Subjective wellbeing: Three decades
   of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125: 276-302.

Easterlin R. A. (2004). How Beneficent Is the Market? A Look at the Modern History of
   Mortality, The Reluctant Economist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Easterlin R.A. (2003). Building a better theory of well-being. Prepared for presentation at the
    Conference “Paradoxes of Happiness in Economics”, University of Milano-Bicocca, March
    21-23.

Easterlin R.A. (2001). Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory. The Economic Journal,
   111:465-484

Easterlin R.A. (2001b). Life Cycle Welfare: Evidence and Conjecture. Journal of Socio-
   Economics, 30:31-61.

Grossman M. (1972). The demand for health- a theoretical and empirical investigation. New
   York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Hambleton I.R, Clarke K., Broome H.L., Fraser H.S., Brathwaite F., & Hennis A.J. (2005).
  Historical and current predictors of self-reported health status among elderly persons in
  Barbados. http://journal.paho.org/index.php?a_ID=290 (accessed March 22, 2006).

Kashdan T.B. (2004). The assessment of subjective wellbeing (issues raised by the Oxford
   Happiness Questionnaire). Personality and Individual Differences, 36:1225–1232.

Kimball,   M.,     &      Willis,   R.     (2005).          Utility   and      happiness.
   www.stanford.edu/group/SITE/papers2005/Kimball.05.doc (accessed August 31, 2006).

Lima M.L., & Nova R. (2006). So far so good: Subjective and social wellbeing in Portugal and
   Europe. Portuguese Journal of Social Science, 55-33.

Marmot, M. (2002). the Influence of Income on Health: Views of an Epidemiologist. Health
   Affairs, 21:31-46.

Pacione, M. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing- a social geographical
   perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65:19-30.
Planning Institute of Jamaica [PIOJ]. (1995). National Plan of Action on Population and
    Development, Jamaica 1995-2015. Kingston: PIOJ.

Powell L.A., Bourne P., & Waller L. (2007). Probing Jamaica’s Political culture, volume 1:
   Main trends in the July-August 2006 Leadership and Governance Survey. Kingston, Jamaica:
   Centre for Leadership and Governance.

Ringen S. (1995). Wellbeing, measurement, and preferences. Scandinavian Sociological

                                             221
   Association, 38:3-15.

Smith J.P, & Kington R. (1997). Demographic and economic correlates of health in old age.
   Demography, 34:159-170.

Stutzer A., & Frey B.S. (2003). Reported subjective well-being: A challenge for economic theory
    and economic policy. http://www.crema-research.ch/papers/2003-07.pdf (accessed August
    31, 2006).

Sumner, A. (2004). Research Paper No. 2004/30. Economic Wellbeing and Non-economic
   Wellbeing: A Review of the Meaning and Measurement of Poverty. United Nations
   University. World Institute for Development Economic Research.

World Bank. (1993). World development report 1993: investing in health, world development
   indicators. Oxford University Press, New York.

World Health Organization [WHO]. (1948). Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health
   Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, June 19-22,
   1946; signed on July 22, 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the
   World Health Organization, no. 2. p.100) and entered into force on April 7, 1948.
   “Constitution of the World Health Organization, 1948.” In Basic Documents, 15th ed.
   Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

WHO. (1999). The world health report 1999. Geneva: WHO.

WHO. (2003). World Health Report 2003. Annex Table 4 Healthy life expectancy (HALE) in
  all Member States, estimates for 2002. Retrieved from
  http://www.who.int/whr/2003/2003/en/Annex4-en.pdf on December 20, 2007




                                             222
                                                                                             Chapter


                                                                                                    7


Does Trust Change Well-Being?



       Introduction: Contextual Background



       In this study, we examine organizational trust, trust in government and interpersonal trust

and how they influence personal well-being as well as particular socio-demographic variables.

We have placed a special emphasis on the different typologies of trust on personal well-being,

because it is well established that trust builds social capital and development, but do the various

types of trust influence personal well-being. A crucial question that we examine in this paper is

the typology of trusts and the extent that any one affects personal well-being as well as some

socio-demographic characteristics and the impact on well-being. Furthermore, trust is the

crucible factor in the well-being debate.


       What is trust? According to Fukuyama (1995), trust is “the expectation that arises within

a community of regular, honest and cooperative behaviour based on commonly shared norms on

the part of other members of that society”. Trust is categorized into two main areas, (1)

interpersonal trust (Blind, 2007), and (2) organizational trust (or political trust) (Kramer & Tyler,

1995; Duck, 1997; Blind, 2007). The latter refers to citizenry’s trust (or distrust) in politicians

and/or politics due to satisfaction or dissatisfaction with credibility of the various agents and

their policies (Miller, 1974). Organizational trust is people’s belief in political actors (i.e. prime

ministers, party presidents or leaders, and public officials) and political institutions (such as

parliament, judiciary, political parties, army, civil service) to provide policies and programmes

                                                 223
that will benefit them and protect their rights Organizational trust (i.e. political trust) is at the

nexus of cooperation and a relationship between citizenry and those who represent them,

whereas interpersonal trust (or social trust) speaks to the confidence, cooperation, and that is

shared between or among people (Putnam, 1993, 1995). ‘Thy word is thy bond’ is a critical

property upon which social and political trust is based within various societies.


           The issue of trust is not limited to organizational, as it can be (1) particularized, (2)

generalized and (3) strategic. (James, & Sykuta, 2004; Uslaner, 2002). Strategic trust looks at

particular tasks, which is the trustee (receiver) is expected from the trustor (giver). This trust is,

therefore, based on an object, which is more the case in human existence as people’s expectation

is linked to particular behaviour that they anticipate from the trustor. On the other hand,

generalized trust is measured on a question that asked – “Generally speaking, would you say that

most people are essentially good and can be trusted, or that most people are not essentially good

and cannot be trusted” (Powell, Bourne, & Waller, 2007, p. 109).              Some may argue that

embedded in this generalized trust is still aspect of objective expectation, and that the yardstick

which is used to adjudged this trust is the past experience and that this includes perception of the

trustor.


           Thus, generalized trust does not necessarily base itself on objective but is linked to some

expectation that may not include an object. Whereas in particularized trust, the trustee based

his/her trust of the trustor on association with a particular group, individual or institution. This

explains why people is more likely for people to have a greater degree of trust for pastors, priest,

deacons, doctors, scientists, scholarships, persons that they know and so on because of past

performance of the group, institution, sector or the individual. Hence, this explains why people

of the same group are more likely to have a greater trust among themselves compared to people

                                                  224
outside of their same social space. Scriptures in the Holy Bible (Job 4:18; 2 Corinthians 1:9;

Micah 7 vs. 5), on the other hand, worn against trust for other people, friends or institutions, but

at the same time wants us to trust God who we cannot see instead of human. The researcher is

cognizant of the discourse on trust within Christendom, but this paper will not venture into this

discourse but acknowledges that it does exist. However, trust requires some cooperation among

the various agents, but are there other typologies of this phenomenon?


       Trust grows with cooperation, and one scholar points out that this commence at zero (i.e.

distrust) and continues to high trust (Lewicki, et al., 2006).        Whether trust is within the

behavioural or psychological tradition, cooperation expectation, intentions, and disposition are

critical tenets that foster the growth from zero to high trust. The fact that we propose that trust

commences at zero and grows onwards, such a theorizing is unidimensional and Lewicki et al.

cites that can be two-dimensional or transformational in nature. The unidimensional approach

measures trust from a scale of different items that ranges from distrust (or zero trust) to high

trust. On the other hand, the two-dimensional approach looks at trust as both negative and

positive expectations. It is measured by scale items of distrust and trust, and that the distrust and

trust are interrelated construct and not separate entities. Whereas the transformational approach

of trust is defined as the o the basis of expected costs, benefits, knowledge of other, degree of

shared values and identity. The operationalization of transformational trust is done on a scale

rated on different qualitative tenets.    But, where does trust begins at the transformational

approach? Lewicki et al. (2006) summarizes this aptly when they say that “Trust begins at a

calculative-based stage.    Trust initiated by reputation, structures that provide rewards for

trustworthiness and deterrents for defection” (2006, p. 994).




                                                225
       A group of Caribbean scholars (Boxill et al., 2007), using a cross-sectional nationally

representative survey of some 1,595 respondents 18 years and older, found that interpersonal

trust builds social capital. Interpersonal trust and social capital is well established crucible

components that foster development and democracy (see for example, Fukuyama, 1995).

Embedded in social capital is an interaction among people, and that fosters productivity as job

satisfaction and quality work milieu are factor of ‘good’ organizational climate. Interpersonal

relations affect the work climate and that this undoubtedly affects the productivity of the

organization as highly motivated individual will produce and contribute more to productive

because of ‘good’ organizational environment. But does this translate into a higher well-being

for the individual?


       Is there a relationship between trust and well-being, and what other factors? Catterberg,

& Moreno (2005), found a positive association between political trust, well-being, social capital,

democratic attitudes, political interest, and external efficacy.       Bourne & Beckford (2008)

examine trust and religiosity in Jamaica; and trust and various socio-demographic conditions as

well as political participation, well-being, and confidence in socio-political institutions in an

attempt to compare different findings. There is another side to this discourse, as some degree of

distrust stimulates fewer persons participating in socio-political institutions.


               …One of the most important lessons we can learn from an examination of
               economic life is that a nation’s well-being, as well as its ability to compete, is
               conditioned by a single, pervasive cultural characteristic: the level of trust
               inherent in the society (Fukuyama, 1995, p.7)


       Fukuyama highlights the interrelationship between cultural undercurrents and national

well-being, but he stop short of stating a relation between trust and personal well-being.

However, he implied by using high level trustworthy societies like the United States and Japan
                                                 226
and argues that those nations have a larger national well-being. The issue of national well-being

cannot be divorced from personal well-being, as from an economic perspective a higher national

well-being indicates that on an average personal well-being will be higher. We need to point out

here that average well-being does not necessarily transfer into higher personal well-being. The

growth in national income does represent a greater personal well-being, but this does not

necessarily indicate that each person in the society will see an increase in his/her personal well-

being as the issue to the observe here is the median personal well-being higher as the mean is

influence by extremely large value. This means that the growth in income may be received by a

few affluent individuals, and so does not translate into higher personal well-being for each.

Although the average personal well-being is higher when there is growth in national income, an

increase in income may mean an increase for only a few people, and not the average citizen in a

society.


       Another important factor that has not been brought into the discourse so far is that

economic resource, income or GDP (i.e. Gross Domestic Product) per capita is not necessarily a

good proxy for well-being [see also, Zak, & Knack (2001)].           It is undoubtedly clear that

cooperation and trust are the bedrock upon which democracy is build, development is fosters

(Fukuyama, 1995); and the growth in income becomes possible. We concur with Durancea

(2006) that social capital, trust and health are positive associated as positive psychology is well

documented that it result in better and ‘good’ health (Brannon, & Feist, 2007; Rice, 1998). One

scholar points out that a trusting person, institution or group will free him/herself or itself from

‘worry’ (Blind, 2007), and psychologists such as Brannon, & Feist as well as Rice argue that

positive thinking directly correlates with increased well-being or health. Hence, what is well-

being and what the different typologies and measure of well-being?


                                                227
       The term well-being is used interchangeable with words such as ‘happiness’, ‘life

satisfaction’, and ‘welfare’ by a number of researchers and/or people in intelligentsia (for

example by Diener, 1984; Easterlin, 2003; Veenhoven, 1993). While some scholars argue that

happiness and life satisfaction are but a fraction of well-being, what is embedded in Diener and

Easterlin’s usage of those terminologies instead of well-being aptly showed that, within the

context of multidisciplinary global market place in which people must operate, the quality of life

that people enjoy (or not enjoy) must be understood before the goals of policy, planning and

decision on wanting to improve welfare, quality of life and/or standard of living of a people can

materialize.


       Diener et al. (1999) forward a perspective that emphasized the importance of hindrance to

Well-being and limitations to its expansion. They write that:


       The influence of genetics and personality suggests a limit on the degree to which policy
       can increase SWB [subjective well-being] . . . Changes in the environment, although
       important for short-term well-being, lose salience over time through processes of
       adaptation, and have small effects on long-term SWB (Diener, Suh, Lucas and Smith
       1999, p. 227)


       It is clear from the writing of Diener et al that policy implementation and execution offers

little to change the subjective well-being of people, and this it would appear must be equally the

same for the elderly. Contrary to this stance, economics theorists suggested that well-being can

be expanded by income and employment (see for example Oswald, 1997; Pigou, 1932), which

was also supported by Keister (2003). According to Keister [in an article titled Sharing the

Wealth: The effect of sibling on adult’s wealth ownership, forwarded that] there is “…little doubt

that material resources can improve quality of life and well...” (Keister, 2003, p. 522). Well-

being, therefore, can be improved with time through material resources, which is counter to the

                                               228
particular perspective lauded by some psychologists (see for example Diener et al., 1999).

       Happiness, according to Easterlin (2003) is associated with well-being, and so does ill-

being (for example depression, anxiety, dissatisfaction). Easterlin (2001; 2003) argued that

material resources have the capacity to improve one’s choices, comfort level, state of happiness

and leisure, which militates against static well-being.     Within the context that developing

countries and developed countries had at some point accepted the economic theory that

economic well-being should be measured by per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – (i.e.

total money value of goods and services produced within an economy over a stated period per

person). Amartya Sen, who is an economist, writes that plethora of literature exist that show that

life expectancy is positively related to Gross National Product (GNP) per capita. (Anand, &

Ravallion, 1993; Sen, 1989). Such a perspective implies that mortality is lower whenever

economic boom exists within the society and that this is believed to have the potential to increase

development, and by extension standard of living. Sen, however, was quick to offer a rebuttal

that data analyzed have shown that some countries (i.e. Sri Lanka, China and Costa Rica) have

had reduced mortality without a corresponding increase in economic growth (Sen, 1998), and

that this was attained through other non-income factors such as education, nutrition

immunization, expenditure on public health and poverty removal. The latter factors,

undoubtedly, require income resources and so this is clear that income is unavoidable a critical

component in welfare and Well-being. It is believed by some scholars that economic growth

and/or development is a measure of welfare (see Becker, Philipson, & Soares, 2004).

       Therefore, those studies on economic well-being were able to offer a plethora of answers

to national governments on the health status of the people, or Well-being and/or ill-being of the

citizens. No policy formulation on improving the quality of life of citizens of a particular space


                                               229
should precede without firstly unearthing ‘real’ determinants of Well-being. From Crisp’s

perspective (2005), well-being is related to health, and the strength of those associations, and

secondly planning requires information that is made available by research. Is traditional

economists’ operationalization of well-being still applicable in contemporary societies, knowing

that this is purely objective?

        If happiness is a state of Well-being, then if we were to impute depression, anxiety,

stress, and illness and/or physical incapacitation, spirituality and milieu within the objective

measurement of well-being, a more holistic valuation would be reached. With the inclusion of

subjectivity conditions in the measurement well-being, we come closer to an understanding of

people’s state of wellness, health and quality of life. As even better nutrition, efficient disposal

of sewage and garbage, and a health lifestyle also contribute to health status (i.e. Well-being). It

should be noted that the biomedical model that is objective, conceptualizes health as the absence

of diseases. This leads to the question, are any of the following diseases – (i) depression, (ii)

stress, (iii) fatigue, and (iv) obsession? Hence, an issue arises, does the lack of objectivity means

accept with skepticism?

        Two medical doctors writing in Kaplan and Saddock’s Synopsis of Psychiatry noted that

physicians are frequently caught in theorizing that normality is a state of health (Saddock, &

Saddock 2003). They argued that doctors’ definition of normality correlates with a traditional

model (biomedical) that emphasizes observable signs and symptoms. Using psychoanalytic

theories, Saddock, & Saddock remarked that the absence of symptoms as a single factor is not

sufficient for a comprehensive outlook on normality.            They stated, “Accordingly, most

psychoanalysts view a capacity for work and enjoyment as indicating normality…” (Saddock, &

Saddock 2003, p. 17). Among the challenges with this method (biomedical model), is its


                                                230
emphasis only on curative care. Such an approach avoids the importance of life style and

preventative care. In that, health is measured based on experiences with illnesses and/or ailment,

with limited recognition being placed on approaches that militates against sickness and /or

diseases. The biomedical approach is somewhat biased against an understanding of multi-

dimensional man, which is not keeping with the holistic conceptualization of health as offered by

the World Health Organization (WHO).

Theoretical framework


While many scholars such as Erber (2005), Brannon, & Feist (2004) had forwarded the idea that

this is timely in the measurement of quality of life, neither of them proposed a mathematical

model to the worded construct (Bourne, 2007a). Even though a single ideational drove this

paper, biopsychosocial model, the final model was developed through a hybrid approach. The

researcher drew variables and the use of advanced quantitative statistical analysis from various

theories, model and functions. The building of this model drew its premise from the

mathematical framework outlined by Stutzer, & Frey (2003) referred to as the micro-

econometric happiness function – this is written as


       ‘Wit = α+ X + it………………………………………………………………….[1]
                   it



       Where Wit represents subjective well-being, Xit denotes x 1 , x 2 , x3 , and so on, in which x1

to x n are variables – ‘socio-demographic’, ‘environmental’, and ‘social’, ‘institutional’ and

‘economic conditions’ (Stutzer, & Frey, 2003, p. 7). Furthermore, according to Stutzer and Frey

(2003, p. 8), classical economists, positivists, were not concerned with the valuation of

happiness. It was thought to be highly subjective. In that, each person had a different perspective

on what constitutes his/her a ‘good life’ and that the indicators of individual Well-being became


                                                231
highly problematic; and should be left to the psychologists. Despite being economists, Stutzer

and Frey ventured in this discourse. They theorized that subjective Well-being is a proxy for

utility, a construct that economists know so well.


       The model is primarily shaped by regression analysis. Embedded with this model was

the correlation between socio-demographic, institutional, environmental and economic

conditions on the Well-being of each individual with different time intervals.          Engel’s

biopsychosocial model was not really a model. Instead it was a construct which sought to

encapsulate body, mind and social conditions in treating health as a model represents a

theoretical network through the use of symbol. What he provided was a set of abstractions that

are designed to explain a special theoretical underpinning of health care. Engel argued for the

expansion of the biomedical model but during the process did not formulate a theory or a mode

(Engel, 1980; 1978; 1977a, 1977b; 1960). Thus, Dr. Engel’s work on the biopsychosocial model

did not have a definite set of variables, neither did he any advancing statistical technique to

illustrate what he referred to as a model. Two economists, Smith, & Kington, on the other hand,

have sought to provide a platform upon which more studies should be positioned in

understanding the health status of a populous, when they used an economic model developed by

Grossman. Grossman’s work was the embodiment of the actual construct outlined by Engel, the

biopsychosocial construct. After which the biopsychosocial construct was now formulated into a

model. It is an econometric model, which uses the principles of a production function. This is a

broader construct of health that incorporates biological, psychological, and sociological

conditions in assessing health status:


       W=ƒ ( P mc , ED, Et , A i , En , G, MS, AR, P, N, O, H, T, R t, V).



                                                 232
        The researcher will explain how he arrived at aforementioned model.


        The overarching theoretical framework that will be adopted in this study is an

econometric model that was developed by Grossman (1972), quoted in Smith and Kington

1997a, which read:


        H t = ƒ (H t-1 , G o , B t , MC t , ED) ……………………………………… (2)


        In which the H t – current health in time period t , stock of health (H t-1 ) in previous period ,

Bt – smoking and excessive drinking, and good personal health behaviours (including exercise –

G o ), MC t ,- use of medical care, education of each family member (ED), and all sources of

household income (including current income)- (see Smith, & Kington 1997, pp. 159-160).

Grossman’s model further expanded upon by Smith, & Kington to include socioeconomic

variables (see Equation 3).


        H t = H* (H t-1 , P mc , P o , ED, Et , R t , A t , G o ) …. ……………………… (3)


        Eq. (2) expresses current health status H t as a function of stock of health (H t-1 ), price of

medical care P mc , the price of other inputs Po , education of each family member (ED), all

sources of household income (Et ), family background or genetic endowments (G o ), retirement

related income (R t ), asset income (A t ,)


        According to Smith, & Kington (1997), using H t = f (H t-1 , P m G o , B t , MC t ED, Ā t , ) to

conceptualize a theoretical framework for “stock of health” noted that health in period t, Ht, is

the result of health preceding this period (H t-1) , medical care (MC t) , good personal health (G o) ,

the price of medical care (P m ), and bad ones (Bt) , and a vector of family education (ED), and all

sources of household income (Ā t ). Embedded in this function is the Well-being that individual


                                                   233
enjoys (or not enjoys) (see Smith, & Kington 1997, 159-160).


       In seeking to operationalize Well-being, the United Nations Development Programme

(UNDP) in the Human Development Reports (1997, 2000) conceptualized human development

as a “process of widening people’s choice as well as the level of achieve            Well-being”.

Embedded within this definition is the emphasis of materialism in interpreting quality of life.

From the UNDP’s Human Development (1993), the human development index (HDI) “…is a

normative measure of a desirable standard of living or a measure of the level of living”, which

speaks to the subjectivity of this valuation irrespective of the inclusion of welfarism (i.e. gross

domestic product (GDP) per capita). The HDI constitute adjusted educational achievement (E=

a 1 * literacy + a 2 * years of schooling, where a1, = 2/3 and a2 = 1/3), life expectancy
                                                                 1-e
(demographic modeling) and income (W (9y) = 1/ (1 – e) * y         ). The function W(y) denotes

“utility or Well-being derived from income”. This income component of the HDI is a national

average (i.e. GDP per capita, which is them adjusted for income distribution (W*(y) = W(y) {1 –

G}), where G = Gini coefficient). In wanting to disaggregate the HDI within a country, the

UNDP (1993) noted that data are not available for many countries, which limits the possibility.


       An economist writing on ‘objective Well-being’ summarized the matter simply by stating

that “…one can adopt a mixed approach, in which the satisfaction of subjective preferences is

taken as valuable too” (Gaspart 1998, 111) (see also Cummin1997), which is the premise upon

which this paper will adhere in keeping with this multidimensional construct, Well-being. Well-

being, therefore, for this paper is ‘psychosocial need-satisfaction’, which is taken from Maslow

(1968, 1970), Alderfer (1972) and Powell, Bourne, & Waller (2007) works.


Data Provenance, Statistical Models, and Explanatory Variables


                                               234
This research is a descriptive cross-sectional one that was conducted by the Centre of Leadership

and Governance (CLGS), the University of the West Indies at Mona, during July and August

2006 to collect data on the political culture of Jamaicans along with their psychosocial state.

Thus, a nationally representative sample of 1, 338 people from the 14 parishes of Jamaica were

interviewed with a 166-item questionnaire. The questionnaire constitutes questions on civic

culture and orientation to democracy, generalized trust which constitutes the following core

variables – interpersonal trust, institutional trust – and confidence, perception of well-being,

crime and corruption, and political participation as well as the standard demographic variables.

Data were collected and stored using the Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS).

Dummy variables were created from some demographic and some other variables – sex, race,

religiosity, area of residence, generalized trust, unemployed person, perceived social class and

justice. Well-being and political participation were computed from a number of scale questions.

Descriptive statistics were done to provide background information on the sample; tests were

done for Cronbach alpha to examine the reliability of the construct – i.e. Well-being and political

participation. Then, logistic regression was used to build a model. A goodness of fit statistics

was done for on the model.




                                               235
Operational definitions


Sex, X. Sex is the biological makeup of males and females. This is a binary measure, where
1=male and 0=female.

Race, R. Race is people’s perception of their ethnical background.

Race1        1=Caucasian (or white)

Race2        1=Black and mixed

Reference: Other ethnicities such as Chinese, Indians

Area of residence, AR. This means the geographic location of one’s place of abode It is a
dummy variable, 1=St. Andrew, Kingston and St. Catherine, 0=Other 21



Trust in government, TG . From the survey questionnaire that reads ‘Would you say most
persons in the Jamaican government can be trusted to keep their promises, or that you can never
be too careful in dealing with people in government’, was then dummy to 1 if can be trusted and
0 if otherwise. Trust is on a continuum, and so no trust or low trust is an indicator of distrust.

Interpersonal Trust, T I . The survey instrument asked the question ‘Generally speaking would
you say that most people are essentially good and can be trusted, or that most people are not
essentially good and cannot be trusted. The variable was then dummied, 1 if most people
essential good and can be trusted, 0 if otherwise. Trust is on a continuum, and so low trust is a
proxy for distrust.

Organizational Trust (proxy with confidence in sociopolitical institutions), TO . This is the
summation of 22 likert scale questions, with each question on a scale of (4) a lot of confidence,
(3) some confidence, (2) a little confidence, to (1) no confidence. The heading that precedes the
question reads: I am going to read to you a list of major groups and institutions in our society.
For each, tell me how much CONFIDENCE you have in that group or institution. Hence, the
Organizational Trust (proxy Confidence) Index = summation of 22 items, with each question
being weighted equally; and 0≤confidence index≤88, with a Cronbach b for the 22-item scale
being 0.896. The higher the scores, the more people have confidence in sociopolitical
institutions within the society. Thus, the confidence index is interpreted as from 0 to 34
represents very little confidence; 35 to 61 is low confidence; 62 to 78 is moderate confidence and
79 to 88 is most confidence. Because, organizational trust is measured on a continuum, low
levels of trust are an indicator of distrust.

21
 Others constitute St. Thomas, Portland, St. Mary, St. Ann, Trelawny, St. James, Hanover, St. Elizabeth,
Westmoreland, Manchester, and Clarendon.

                                                       236
Well-being Index. W = ΣQ i where Q i is the selected value from each ladder of Maslow’s
Hierarchy of Need, with equal weight given to each response and each option (i.e. ladder). The
Cronbach alpha being 0.762 for the 5-item variables, which are used to constitute this Index.
Why is Maslow’s hierarchy used to measure Well-being. As development studies have shifted
its focus from purely an economic pursuit to a multi-disciplinary approach, so has Well-being
moved away from economic determinism to a multi-dimensional conceptualization. Within the
neoteric scope since 2000, motivation is a ‘good’ measure of why individuals do things; needs
and satisfaction are, therefore, multi-dimensional coverage of subjective Well-being as it tenets
are very broad. Thus, subjective psychosocial Well-being, for this study, include (1) self-
reported state of health, basic (physiological) needs; recognition (affiliation) needs; self-
fulfillment (achievement) needs; and the need for love and affection. Each question is a Likert
scale ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 denotes lowest need-satisfaction to 10 being the highest.
Thus, the W index is interpreted as from 0 to 3.9 is low; 4.0 to 6.9 is moderate; 7.0 to 8.9 is high
and 9.0 to 10 is very high.

Subjective Social Class, ‘S’. This is people’s perception of their social and economic position in
life, based on social stratification.

     Class1                            1=Middle class, 0=other

     Class2                            1=Upper class, 0=other
The reference group is ‘Lower Classes



                                              Insert table 1, here

The Initial Model will be tested in this paper is Eq. [1.0] -

W = β 0 + β 1 T G + β 2 T I + β 3 TO + β 4 S ij + β 5 A + β 6 R + β 7 O + β 8 AR + β 9 X + ε 1 . .........[1.0]

Hence, we will test Eq.. [1.0] by least square, see Eq.. [1.1]

W = b 0 + b 1 TG + b 2 T I + b 3 TO + b 4 ∑S ij + b 5 A + b 6 R + b 7 O + b 8 AR + b 9 X + ε 1 .…..[1.1]

          Eq. [1.0] expresses personal Well-being (i.e. personal psychosocial Well-being) W as a

function of β0 … β 9 where each Beta (β i ) is the parameter of each variables which is similar to b 0

to   b9 , trust in government (TG ), interpersonal trust (TI ), organization trust (TO ), subjective

social class (S ij ), age of respondents (A), race (R ), occupation (O ), area of residents (AR ), and

sex of respondent (X ).


                                                        237
       We tested the model (i.e. Eq. [1]) of the predisposed variables to ascertain whether the

relation is a linear one or curvilinear. Using the F value of 8.131, we found that it (i.e. Eq.. [1])

is a highly significant indicator that the relation is a linear one, p value = 0.001 < 0.05. From the

observational data (N=955), we tested the model in Eq. [1] and found that four of the

predisposed variables were statistically significant (p value < 0.05). Of the 3 different types of

trust (i.e. interpersonal, governmental and organizational trust), only interpersonal trust was

found to influence Well-being of the aforementioned trust variables. Hence, the final model is a

parsimonious one as it uses only the statistically significant predisposed variables – (see Table 2)

Eq. [1]:


W = b 0 + b 2 TI - b 4 ∑S ij - b 6 R - b 7 O + ε 1 …………….………….………..[1.2]

Final Model - W = β 0 + β 2 T I - β 4 ∑S ij - β 6 R - β 7 O + ε 1 …………….…....[1.3]

       We found that 8.7% of the variation in well-being is explained by model in Eq.. [1.2],

with interpersonal trust adding positively to well-being compared to subjective social class,

occupation and racing reducing well-being. (See Table 2). Further analysis of the model, by

way of using Beta (i.e. β), revealed that the interpersonal trust contributed the second or third

most to well-being depending on whether or not social class is middle class or upper class with

referent work class (see table 2).


                                        Insert table 2, here


Discussion and Conclusion



This study marks a first of its kind in the English Speaking Caribbean and in particular Jamaica

and as such there is no other research to compare it against. Nevertheless, there are some

interesting findings that emerge, which are making for invaluable contribution to the current

                                                238
space on trust and well-being. This paper provides empiricism to the discourse on trust and well-

being, but does not claim to provide all the answers. The model is a static “snapshot” one, but

this limitation does not remove the potency of the findings.


       We find that on an average Jamaicans well-being is high (mean 7± 1.73) and the mode

well-being is 8, the level of distrust in different typologies of trust is very high. We find that of

the three typologies of trust (i.e. organizational trust, trust in government, and interpersonal trust)

the government has the highest degree of distrust (i.e. 8 out of 100 people trust the government

or 92 out of 100 distrust the government) while 62 out of 100 Jamaicans distrust each other

compared to 68 out of 100 who distrust sociopolitical organizations (organizational distrust).

Hence, the question: “Does trust (or distrust) affects well-being?”


       Some may begin to question whether trust is a factor in well-being, or that some types of

trust (or distrust) do not influence personal well-being. In this study, on the other hand, we

measure personal well-being and not community or national well-being. Well-being was

operationalized by way of ‘psychosocial need-satisfaction’ and so it gives a good approximation

of well-being broader than just physical health (or functioning health) to include self-esteem,

self-actualization and love, warm and friendship. Hence, with this multidimensional construct of

well-being used in this study, what explains the disparity between high personal well-being and

low trust?


       One of the explanations for the disparity between well-being and trust lies in the area of

the plantation society established during slavery, which justifies the suspicion and the ease with

which someone is able to misinterpret another’s intent.               Although Jamaicans may be

experiencing a personal well-being which is higher than the national standard of living for the


                                                 239
average person (using GDP per capita), distrust was used by the plantocracy class as a decisive

tool that held the slaves together. In that, when some of the slaves were giving some privileges

over others, then the slaves in an attempt to display gratitude would reciprocate a good deed by

informing the superiors of other slaves’ intents.


       Some people may argue that slavery has ended some time ago, and so using slavery as

the catalyst for any discussion on our contemporary realities of trust (or the lack of – distrust) is

blaming the wind for our failure to harness its benefits. In this paper we are not forwarding a

claim that slavery accounts for all our current woes and misfortunes, but that it helps to explain

many aspect to contemporary developing societies’ workings, more so in relation to cultural

practices and the issues of distrust.


       Distrust was embedded in the psyche of among slaves by their owners in an attempt to

foster continuous rule as well as cohesion between the planter class and the slave class. The

Morant Bay Rebellions (in St. Thomas), Cudjoe’s resistant to the planter class, the Maroons

blatant disregard for their oppressive state to which they should be grateful are all indications of

the divide between the sociopolitical institutions of slavery and the distrust of the slave of this

system in promoting their well-being. The distrust was fashioned in slavery was two-dimensional

as (1) it was between the plantocracy class and (2) among slaves. In the latter group, the divide

that was created by some slave reporting their fellow slaves to the slave owners meant that there

was low integrity (honesty) among the slaves for each other as they would have seen instance

when other slaves’ intent could be selfish, dishonest and air marks a betrayal of integrity. This

meant that slaves did not trust the plantocratic class, neither did the plantocratic class trust the

slaves but there was another group as the slaves self trust was low as they would not trust each

other. Among the rationale for this high distrust was past performance of other slaves, track

                                                240
record attitudes of other slaves and this undermines the integrity generally, and that each slave

was cautious of the other’s motive. Slaves were sometimes arrested, punished and imprisoned

for offences that include gaming and dicing, obeah (i.e. religious customs), ‘improper language’,

insolence, and flying kites.


       Slaves saw the plantation society as oppressive, and a violation of their self worth and

accustomed human dignity. This explains many of the rebellious behaviour that they exhibit and

were oftentimes arrested for as they did not construe their actions infringement on the slave

owner. Instead, their behaviours symbolize a consorted effort to devalue the society that was

established by the slave owners and the plantation economy. Lorna Simmonds (2004) argues that

actions (or inactions) of the slaves mark the slaves perception of a system that did not cater for

their upward political, social or economic mobility. The perception is that plantation economies

did not hold an equal chance for ‘blacks’ or poor black people.


       The confrontation between slaves and slave owners was also aided by slaves, who sided

with the planter and owner classes. Some slaves would betray the trust of other slaves when they

would report the activities of the slaves along with any planning that they had as well as intent of

resistance. Simmonds argue that slaves would give witness against other slaves in an effort to

solicit the trust and favour the planter class and slave owners. This meant that many of the

slaves would be cognizant of other slaves being punished for insubordinate, resistance and other

activities primarily because of the actions of defunct slaves and perpetrators. Thus, there was a

clear distrust that would be harboured in the psyche of many slaves that their activities may

become known to the slave masters. Simmonds brings a statistics that show that of 23 eyes

witnesses to give testimony against slave, approximately 50% of this figure were slaves (2004,

p.24). We are not provide any idea that all slaves who were brought before the court was found

                                                241
guilty, but that the acquittal rate was about 10% (Simmonds, 2004). With this said, behaviour of

people is one of the reasons for distrust. Thus, the behaviour of others matter in any area of trust

– whether it is self interpersonal, governmental, or organizational trust – as it is this that is used

to evaluate to trust or to distrust.


        Hence, our present distrust for socio-political institutions continues to be surprisingly

alarming as many people still believe that the structure is not catering for their well-being,

human rights, civility, and interest. After the abolition of slavery, Jamaica gained independence

in 1962. However, post-1962, no consecutive governments have sought to address the legacy of

distrust which emerged during slavery (in particular the divides between and among people,

interpersonal distrust).


        Slavery is not primarily about the institutional framework that exploited certain class and

nations, but it is also about the building of interpersonal distrust that the framers of the plantation

system did not recognize nor sought to address in their efforts to construct a society that had

justice, ‘good’ intent and motives, confidence, honesty and fairness. This is one of the hallmarks

for current distrust in each other, for institutions and a high degree of self-distrust, which

expresses itself in violence and crime.


        We will now contextualize the low degree of trust in government and other socio-

political organizations as well as the high interpersonal distrust in Caribbean societies (in

particular Jamaica) by using a number of George Beckford’s analogies of the injustices of

modern times (the creation of plantation economies), we will evaluate current distrust from a

historic setting.




                                                 242
       It is becoming increasingly clear that the fortunes of North Atlantic peoples are closely
       related to the misfortunes of Third World peoples, in many fundamental ways (Beckford,
       1999, p. xxi)

       The slave class was in a real sense similar in status to cattle and was on the whole an
       undifferentiated mass. (Beckford, 1999, 38)
       The early plantation societies of the New World were made up of three groups: the white
       European planters and slave-owners at the top of the social and political hierarchy; the
       free white intermediate group; and the large body of black slaves at the bottom
       (Beckford, 1999, p.38).
       The brutality and inhumanity of slavery forced the slaves into a total rejection of the
       plantation. This led to numerous revolts and escape (Beckford, 1999, p. 38)




       Before we become engrossed in the discourse of history (using slavery and the plantation

economies), let us now look at particular typologies of trust (or/and distrust) in Jamaica.

Currently, this study found that organizational distrust in Jamaica is as high as 68%, and distrust

is even higher for government (92%), with interpersonal distrust being 63%. The statistics

provided by the current research highlight the implications and consequences for low

accountability from governments over the years. Powell, Bourne, & Waller (2007) find that

contemporary distrust in some sociopolitical institution in Jamaica is every lower for some

agents. Their study reveals that propinquity of distrust for political parties, parliament, and local

government was in the region of 60%. However, low confidence in government (56.2%) was

even higher than that for political parties (69.7%); with 69.4% of Jamaicans reporting that the

administration of justice favours the rich and that 68.8% of Jamaicans believing that country is

governed for the benefit of powerful interest (Powell, Bourne, & Waller, 2007, pp. 68-69). The

descriptive statistics show that people’s level of distrust for politicians and parties are high and

that this indicates their low level of confidence in particular sociopolitical institutions, the issue

of integrity in those agencies, and that this goes back to slavery.


                                                 243
                                            Insert table 3, here


       Caribbean nations have not addressed the issue of the divide and the distrust that was

created from plantation economies. George Beckford, aforementioned perspectives, has

highlighted the caste (or class) segregation of the plantation societies, and that the slaves’

trajectory to established settlements in Maroon Town and other sections of the island (in

Jamaica) outline the startling divide between the two groups. This does not recognize the

interpersonal divide among the slaves because of the intent of some slaves to aid the cause of the

slave-owners, some slaves did not trust the agenda of other slaves as they sometimes believe that

the motive of their kind could be foster the will of the plantocracy. Hence, the current levels of

distrust is not surprising as our culturalization and socialization have not address these

fundamental concerns of the motives, agenda, perception of distrust, intent of others, and past

performance of the superior class to provide justice for all has aided in the low confidence in

different institutions and person to person.


       The socialization of children within the lower class is continuously having to interface

with dishonesty, injustices, intent of others, motives, confidence in sociopolitical institutions, and

the propinquity to fairness has eluded their grasped for years, making them distrust the other

classes even more. The other classes (middle and upper) are concern about the motives, and

intent of the lower class and this fosters and deepen the divide between the people. Distrust is

also reinforced in churches, as they culturalized their audience with a diet of distrust in other

person (i.e. the flesh) and this goes further to not trusting even your own. This distrust is

highlighted even in scriptures of the Holy Bible (Micah 7 vs. 5; Job 4 vs. 18), and a particular

scripture cites that “But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust

[author’s emphasis] in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead” (2 Corinthians 1 vs. 9),

                                                 244
which further deepens the divide among people as a critical aspect to their culturalization is

distrust for self and of others. Hence, when we coalesce the divides of slavery and the religious

teachings we get a ‘good’ mix for a clearer understanding of the distrust in each other. Then,

there are the issues of motive, intent and expectations that are contributory factors in the issue of

high distrust.


        Here, when an individual kills another because he/she believes that the other person is

likely to destroy his/her property or person, this goes to the core of intent, and further justifies

the disparity between high wellbeing and low trust in Jamaica. A critical ingredient component

in any typology of trust is intent, motive and agenda. In the aforementioned example, the

individual’s motive to kill is based on his/her distrust for the agenda of the other person. Hence,

the agenda is a by-product of the motive, which is perceived by the killer of his fellow man.

Caribbean peoples are still suspicious (distrustful) of the motives and intentions of each other,

because they believe that the agenda of another person is do them ‘evil’ and that people’s

behaviour is do them harm. Thus, there are little mutual motives and intents of people, as people

believe that the next person is not acting in your best interest nor is there mutual benefit in all

transactions.


        In a nationally representative cross-section survey of some 1,140 Jamaicans that was

conducted in September 2006, find that the respondents believe that the police force, parish

council, customs and central governments are the four-most corrupt institutions in the country,

with in excess of 80% reporting that the police force is the most corruption among the 4

aforementioned agencies.     To further provide an insight into the psyche of Jamaicans, the

findings reveal that 85% of the sampled respondents reported that it was ‘relatively easy’ for

those institutions to become corrupt. (Waller, Bourne, Minto, & Rapley, 2007). The scholar cite

                                                245
that “…this perception is as high as it seems to be in Jamaica, then, this can have a devastating

effect on citizen trust and willingness to participate constructively in society” (Waller, et al.,

2007, p.19), which emphasizes the level of confidence that Jamaicans have in some

sociopolitical institutions. This is highlighted in a finding from Waller, et al. that shows that

56% of Jamaicans reported that corrupt individuals are unlikely to be caught and punished for

their involvement in various illegal and corrupt activities.


       Currently, with regard to the low trust in government this can be traced back to the late

1970s to the early 1980s. Some people believe that politics is responsible for many of the

present crime and violence. In Horace Levy (2001) in his book titled ‘They cry respect. Urban

violence and poverty in Jamaica’, he cites from a qualitative study that some people believe that

“politics mash up everything” (2001, p. 14), which is to say that politics is the reason for many

of the Jamaican society’s dilemma in regards to crime and violence. There are many accusations

and counter accusations that politicians are responsible for inner city decays (see Levy), this

paper will not venture into this discussion but we introducing into the discourse for the

justification for the low level of distrust in government as people have a particular perception (or

misperception) of the government in the past. Then there is the issue of past performance of

government that is also an explanation for the low trust, and low political participation that we

have been experience for some time now (see Trevor Munroe, 1997; 1999).


       It is not only in governments that Jamaicans have low trust but also in socio-political

organizations. Among the reasons for this high distrust is past performance of many of these

institutions. The police force for example is among some of the institutions with a low degree of

trust (Waller, Bourne, Minto, & Rapley, 2007), and a primary reason for this reality is the level



                                                 246
of perceived corruption, and the alleged number of police killings over the years in addition to

police brutality.


        The findings from this study has conclusive shown that of the three different typologies

of trust (or distrust), only interpersonal trust (or distrust) affects personal well-being. It follows

that people are able to isolate different issues, and that some do not influence their current well-

being state while others do. Although the policies of government do in some way interrelated to

the quality of life of the average citizens, people’s distrust for the government does not affect

their Well-being as they still able to acquire some material well-being even during a recession.


        Using cross-sectional observation data of some 1,338 people in Jamaica, a Caribbean

scholar (Bourne, 2007b) has shown that religion positively affects well-being and that this

concurs with studies from non-Caribbean intelligentsia (Krause 2006; Moody 2006: Jurkovic and

Walker 2006; Wiegand, & Weiss, 2006; Ardelt 2003; Graham et al. 1978). There is longstanding

discourse that praying, frequent church attendance and belief in a supernatural being aids quality

of life. Religion and religiosity are not only factors of well-being; according to Marx, it is the

opiate (i.e. drug) that alleviates many of the current realities of its practitioners. Because

religious people believe that their wealth, blessing, and fortunes are parceled in a future life

which is in heaven with God, this allow they to absorb a number of inhumane and negative

happenings as they focus and reshape these as challenges that are here to make them better and

more prepared for the future place of abode.


        In a study conducted by Frazier et al. (2005) exclusively on African American older

people, they found that several multidimensional measures of religiosity were associated with

psychological Well-being. Kail and Cavanaugh (2004, p. 584) captured the experiences of


                                                 247
seniors and how religion enhances their survivability, when they said that "...older adults who are

more involved and committed to their faith have better physical and mental health ..." When

asked 'how you deal with the living', respondents listed among coping strategies spirituality (Kail

and Cavanaugh 2004). From studies, analyzed earlier, spiritual support is a mechanism used in

coping with life's challenges as the church offers a social support system and this is a mantle of

hope. Religiosity is a determinant of the health status of people more so for seniors as they

continue to grapple with lose of spouse, work and other psychosocial and biological conditions.


       Health psychologists concurred with Theologians and Christians that religion influence

psychological Well-being (Taylor 1999; Rice 1998; Paloutzian, & Kirkpatrick, 1995). Taylor

argued that religious people are more likely to cope with stressors than non-religious individuals,

which explains the former better health status. She forwarded the position that this may be done

through avoidance or vigilant strategies. This response is an aversive coping mechanism in

addressing serious monologue or confrontational and traumatic events.           Coping strategies,

therefore, are psychological tools used by an individual to problem-solve issues, without which

are likely to construct stressors and threaten ones health status. Taylor (1999, p. 214) said that

"some religious beliefs also lead to better health practices" which see lower cancer mortality

rates from all cancers in Orthodox Christians. This begs the question can lucre buy happiness, or

can it change Well-being?


       It is well established that income is a predictor of economic well-being (Sen, 1999). The

traditional approach by economists to examine well-being has been to use GDP per capita, and

that an increase in GDP per capita over the previous year is an indicator of improvement in

standard of living of the populace (Lipsey, 1999). Among the many economists that have said

that this is an obsolete way of operationalizing well-being is Sen (1982, 1985). Amartya Sen

                                               248
argues that using GDP per capita as a proxy for well-being places emphasis on the means or

inputs, and not on the ends or outcomes. With the highlight on the means (‘economic welfare’),

this exclude rights (see also Sumner, 2004: p.3), as some of the inputs in well-being cannot be

economically quantified in monetary terms such as freedom, capabilities, rights, happiness, self-

actualization, self-esteem, political participation, and empowerment.        Hence, what is this

economic well-being (GDP per capita growth) about?


       Although the use of income (GDP per capita) is a relatively old indicator of Well-being

(Sen, 1982, 1985; Sumner, 2004), its relevance is still applicable in contemporary societies (see

Lima, & Nova, 2006, p. 5). The study used data from 20 European countries, with a

representative sample of 36, 424 people. Among the findings of these scholars is that wealth is

directly associated with subjective well-being. It should be noted that income still affords one to

purchase the best preventative and curative care. In addition, the ownership of durable goods

can be use as a form of investment in older years with which the aged is able to use to acquire

earnings (see Bhaduri, 1986). Thus, the aged are able to use properties (assets – houses,

buildings, premises) which were acquired in earlier years to earn valuable income upon which

Well-being can be sustained in the future. In addition, pension and other social security benefits

that the retired received because of having reached 60 years and beyond are also important

contributors to increased Well-being of the aged (see Haveman et al., 2003).


       The HDI assumes that increases in economic growth will directly result in an

improvement in health status (see also Easterlin 2004) and by extension the Well-being of

peoples within a particular geographic space. If the theory between income and health status

holds true, then poor countries should not have a life expectancy which is equally comparable

with the developed countries? But this is not affirmative as countries like Jamaica and

                                               249
Barbados’s life expectancies are in excess of 70 years for both gender, which is keeping with the

values for many societies within the first world countries. Even though this income theory of

explaining health may seem applicable, health is simply not necessarily a function of income but

it is a set of mechanisms that the lucre will purchase that will afford a certain health – not one

factor (see for example Case 2001), - which includes education, material possession or durable

goods, technology and so on. A group of scholars, instead of using income, have used possession

of durable goods as an indicator of wealth and income, and this has proved to be significantly

associated with health (Filmer, & Pritchett, 2001). Hence, it not be surprising the well-being of

the middle and upper social class had a greater well-being compared to their lower class

counterparts, which was equally supported by the reality of this study that the occupation of

those in the lower occupations enjoying a lower well-being compared to those in managerial and

other higher occupations such as teaching, medicine, engineering et cetera. However, income

does not buy well-being indefinitely as the middle class Jamaicans reported a higher overall

psychosocial Well-being compared to upper class Jamaicans.


       In summing, of the different typologies of trust – such as organizational, government, and

interpersonal – only interpersonal trust influences personal well-being.        Interpersonal trust

positively affects personal well-being, but it impact on the well-being is minimal compared to

social class, which is an indicator of income and other socio-economic conditions. Hence,

income is a more dominant indicator of well-being than trust or other socio-demographic

characteristics used in this study. The researcher believes that this paper does not hold the key to

the answering of all questions relating to trust and well-being, but it will be the platform upon

which other study may begin from here onwards.




                                                250
Acknowledgement

The author is grateful for the comments and suggestions of and Oniel Jones that have made the

completion of this paper possible.


Reference


Anand, S., & Ravallion, M. (1993). Human development in poor countries: on the role of private
   incomes and public services. Journal of Economic Perspective 7.
Arendt, J. N. 2005. Income and “outcomes” for elderly: Do the poor have a poorer life? Social
       Indicators Research 70, 3:327-347. Academic Research Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed
       19 August 2006).
Becker, G. S., Philipson, T. J., & Soares, R.R. (2004). The quantity and quality of life and the
       evolution                     of                   world                       inequality.
       http://www.spc.uchicago.edu/prc/pdfs/becker05.pdf#search=%22preston%20quality%20
       of%20life%22 (accessed August 22, 2006)

Beckford, G. (1999). Persistent poverty. Underdevelopment in Plantation Economies of the
Third World, 2nd ed. Kingston, Jamaica: The University  of the West Indies Press.

Bhaduri, A. 1986.     Macroeconomics: The dynamics of commodity production. New York:
   Sharpe.

Blind, P. K. (2007, June). Building trust in government in the twenty-first century: Review of
        literature and emerging issues. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the      Seventh
Global Forum on         Reinventing government Building trust in government, Vienna, Austria.

Bourne, P. (2007a). Determinants of well-being of the Jamaican elderly. Unpublished Master’s
thesis, the University of the West Indies, Mona,   Kingston, Jamaica.

Bourne, P.A. (2007b). Religiosity and its role in predicting subjective   psychological    Well-
being for Jamaicans. Manuscript to be published.

Bourne, P.A., & Beckford, O. (2008). An examination of generalized trust in Jamaica: Using
   empirical data to model trust. Manuscript to be published.

Boxill, I., Lewis, B., Rusell, R., Bailey, A., Waller, L., James, C., Martin, P., & Gibbs, L.
        (2007). Political Culture of Democracy in Jamaica: 2006. Vanderbilt University.

Brannon, L. & Feist, J. (2004). Health psychology. An introduction to behavior and health, 5th
   ed. Los Angeles: Wadsworth.

Case, A. (2001).    Health, Income and economic development.          Prepared for the ABCDE
   Conference,            World         Bank,          May                  1-2,         2001.
                                               251
   http://www.princeton.edu/~rpds/downloads/case_economic_development_abcde.pdf
   (accessed 6 June 2001).

Crisp, R. (2005). “Well-being.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (winter 2005 Edition)
    E. N. Zalta ed. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2005/entries/Well-being/ (accessed
    August 22, 2006).

Cummins, R. (1997). Self-rated quality of life scales for people with an intellectual disability: A
     review. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 10:199–216.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective Well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95:542-575.

Diener, E., Larson, R.J., Levine, S., & Emmon, R.A. (1999). Subjective Well-being: Three
   decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin 125: 276-302.

Duck, S. (1997). The Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and Interventions.
       New York: Wiley.

Easterlin, R. A. (2003). Building a better theory of Well-being. Prepared for presentation at the
   conference Paradoxes of Happiness in Economics, University of Milano-Bicocca, March 21-
   23, 2003. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~easterl/papers/BetterTheory.pdf (accessed August 26,
   2006).

Erber, J. (2005).   Aging and older adulthood. New York:           Waldsworth, Thomson
   Learning.
Engel, G. L. (1980). The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model. American
   Journal of Psychiatry 137:535-544.

_________. (1978). The biopsychosocial model and the education of health professionals.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 310: 169-181.

_________. (1977a). The care of the patient: art or science? Johns Hopkins Medical
   Journal 140:222-232.

_________. (1977b). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine.
   Science 196:129-136.

_________. (1960). A unified concept of health and disease. Perspectives in Biology and
Medicine 3:459-485.

Filmer, D. and L. Pritchett. 2001. Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data—or Tears:
    An application to educational enrollments in States of India. Demography 38: 115-32.

Frazier, C., L. B. Mintz, and M. Mobley. 2005. A multidimensional look at religious
   involvement and psychological Well-being among urban elderly African Americans.
   Journal of Counseling Psychology 52:583-590.

Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust, New York: Free Press.
                                               252
Gaspart, F. (1998). Objective measures of Well-being and the cooperation production problem.
   Social Choice and Welfare 15, 1:95-112. Academic Search Premier, EbscoHost (accessed 8
   February 2006).

Graham, T. W., B. H. Kaplan, J. C. Cornoni-Huntley, S. A. James, C. Becker, C. G. Hames, and
     S. Heyden. 1978. Frequency of church attendance and blood pressure elevation. Journal
     of Behavioral Medicine 1:37-43.

Grossman, M. (1972). The demand for health- a theoretical and empirical investigation. New
   York: National Bureau of Economic Research. Quoted in Demographic and economic
   correlates of health in old age, J. P. Smith, and R. Kington. 1997. Demography 34:159-170.

Haveman, R., K. Holden, K. Wilson, and B. Wolfe. 2003. Social security, age of retirement, and
   economic Well-being: Inter-temporal and demographic patterns among retired-worker
   beneficiaries. Demography 40:369-394.

James, H.S. Jr., & Sykuta, M.E. (2004, October). Generalized and Particularized Trust in
Organization. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the International Society for New
Institutional Economics meetings in Tucsan,            Arizona, USA.
Jurkovic, D., and G. A. Walker. 2006. Examining masculine gender-role conflict and stress in
    relation to religious orientation and spiritual Well-being in Australian men. Journal of Men’s
    Studies 14, 1:27-46. Academic Research Premier, EbscoHost (accessed 10 February 2006).

Kail, R. V., and J. C. Cavanaugh. 2004. Human development: A life-span view, 3rd ed. New
   York: Thomson.

Keister, L. A. (2003). Sharing the wealth: The effect of sibling on adult’s wealth ownership.
   Demography 40:521-542.

Kramer, R.M. & Taylor, T.R. (1995). Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research.
      Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage

Krause, N. 2006. Religious doubt and psychological Well-being: A longitudinal investigation.
   Review of Religious Research 47, 3:287-302. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost
   (accessed 30 June 2006).

Lewicki, R.J., Tomlinson, E.C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust
   development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal of
   Management, 32:991-1022.

Levy, H. (2001). They cry ‘respect’. Urban violence and poverty in Jamaica.    Kingston:
Centre for    Population, Community and Social Change,           Department of Sociology and
Social Work, University of the West Indies, Mona.

Lipsey, R. 1999. Economics, 12th ed. Los Angeles: Addison-Wesley.


                                               253
Lima, M. L., and R. Nova. 2006. So far so good: Subjective and social Well-being in Portugal
   and Europe. Portuguese Journal of Social Science 55-33.

Miller, A. H. (1974). Political Issues and Trust in Government, 1964-1970. American Political
        Science Review 68, 3: 951-972.

Moody, H. R. 2006. Is religion good for your health? Gerontologist 14:147-149. Academic
  Research Library, ProQuest (accessed April 12, 2006).

Munroe, T. (2002). An Introduction to Politics. Lectures for First-Year Students, 3rd. Kingston:
    Canoe.

Munroe, T. (1999). Renewing democracy into the Millennium. The Jamaican Experience in
    Perspective. Kingston: The University of the West Indies Press.

Oswald, A. J. (1997). Happiness and economic performance. Economic Journal 107:1815-31.

Paloutzian, R.Z., and L.A. Kirkpatrick. 1995. Introduction: The scope of religious influences on
    personal and societal Well-being. Journal of Social Issues 51:1-11.

Pigou, A. C. (1932). The economics of welfare. London: Macmillan.

Powell, L. A., Bourne, P., & Waller, L. (2007). Probing Jamaica’s Political Culture, Vol. 1: Main
   trends in the July-August 2006 leadership and governance survey. Kingston, Jamaica: Centre
   for Leadership and Governance.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton:
      Princeton University Press.

Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of
      Democracy, 6, 65-78.

Rice, P. L. 1998. Health psychology. Los Angeles: Brooks/Cole.
Saddock, B. J., & Saddock, V.A. (2003). Kaplan and Saddock’s Synopsis of psychiatry:
   Behavioral Sciences/Clinical Psychiatry 9thed. Philadephia: Lippincott Williams and
   Wilkins.
Sen, A. (1982). Choice, Welfare and Measurement. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Sen, A. (1985). Well-being, Agency and Freedom: The Dewey Lectures. Journal of Philosophy,
     82: 169-221.
Sen, A. (1998). Mortality as an indicator of economic success and failure. Economic Journal
     108:1-25.

Simmonds, L. E. (2004). The problem of crime in an urban slave society: Kingston in the early
   Nineteenth century. In Harriott, A., Brathwaite, F., & Wortley, S. (eds). (2004). Crime and
   criminal justice in the Caribbean. Kingston: Arawak publisher.


                                              254
Stutzer, A., & Frey, B.S. (2003). Reported subjective Well-being: A challenge for economic
    theory and economic policy. http://www.crema-research.ch/papers/2003-07.pdf (accessed
    August 31, 2006).

Smith, J. P., & Kington, R. (1997). Demographic and economic correlates of health in old age.
   Demography 34:159-170.

Summers, Robert and Heston, Alan. 1995. Standard of Living: SLPOP An Alternative Measure
   of              Nations'             Current              Material              Well-being.
   http://pwt.econ.upenn.edu/papers/standard_of_living.pdf (accessed January 24, 2006).

Taylor, S. 1999. Health psychology, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

United Nations Development Programme. (1990- 2005). Human development report, 2005.
   New York: UNDP.

Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The Moral Foundations of Trust, New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Veenhoven, R. (1993). Happiness in nations, subjective appreciation of in 56 nations 1946-
    1992. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Erasmus University.

Waller, L., Bourne, P., Minto, I.& Rapley, J.. (2007). A landscape assessment of corruption in
Jamaica. Kingston: Capri.

Wiegand, K.E., & Weiss, H. (2006). Affective reactions to the thought of “God”:
      Moderating effects of image of God. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7:23- 40.

Zak, P. J., & Knack, S. (2001). Trust and growth. Economic Journal, 111, 295-   321.




                                              255
                                                                                          Chapter


                                                                                                 8




Trust (or mistrust) and Morale in the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF)




       Introduction: Background


       The aim of this study is to critically examine different typologies of trust within the

Jamaica Constabulary Force (the Force) using a static “snapshot” studies in time, and to identify

factors that affect interpersonal trust among police officers, as well as an understanding of

morale and how this affects trust. In addition to the aforementioned issues, we are concerned

about differences between interpersonal trust among Jamaicans and that in the Force –

interpersonal trust in Jamaica was 37.3% - that is, approximately 4 out of every 10 person trust

each other (Powell, Bourne, & Waller, 2007). Hence, we embarked on this explanatory cross-

sectional research of some 400 police personnel. It was a nationally representative survey of the

17 police divisions across the island of Jamaica. Because interpersonal trust is a vital ingredient

in cooperation, social capital, all forms of development, job satisfaction, productivity

(Fukuyama, 1995) and democracy (Blind, 2007), we know that a study on the matter in the Force

is timely and is long overdue. Within the context of a high degree of crime in the island (PIOJ,

1990-2007), and the increasingly high rate of police officers being brought before the courts on

charges of corruption and/or misconduct and within the general setting of the low level of



                                               256
detection in this regard, we are interested to ascertaining the degree of interpersonal trust in the

Force.


         Trust has emerged as a prominent construct in research predicting individual-level
         outcomes such as job satisfaction, organization citizenship behaviors, organizational
         commitment, turnover, and job performance. (Lewicki, Tomlinson, & Gillespie, 2006, p.
         991)

         Over the past decade, Transparency International’s corruption perception index has

shown that corruption in Jamaica has been steadily increasing (Transparency International, 1997-

2007), and that this indicates a continuous attrition of the sociopolitical and economic fabric of

the society.    Among the challenges facing the country are not only corruption, but also

population ageing (Bourne, 2007a, 2007b; Caribbean Food and Nutrition Institute, 1999;

Eldemire, 1995, 1994), increased mortality (Statin, 2006), the inverse relation between

corruption and development (Waller, Bourne, Minto, & Rapley, 2007), the increase in the

national debts, escalating crimes and belligerence (Brown, 2006; Harriott, 2002a; Headley,

2002), and the low level of trust as well as the deterioration of social capital and skepticism, as it

relates to the effective administration of the country. Social capital, according to one scholar,

defines it as “lubricant of interactions among people” (Arrow, 1974, p.23).              One of the

fundamental and overarching principles that facilitate the function of a society (or community) is

trust (Fukuyama, 1995), and so corruption erodes that reality.          Thus, if corruption was to

continue as it currently exists in developing nations, we should expect that uncivil activities in

those societies will even intensify, corruption will become higher, and we should see

increasingly lower cooperation and trust for others.


         Ergo, any study on interpersonal trust – which refers to as social trust (i.e. confidence

between people who are of the same social community) - is also about a better understanding of


                                                 257
dynamics of cooperation and competition (Deutsch, 1958, 1962; Gambetta, 1988), and the

resolution of conflict (Deutch, 1973; Lewicki, & Stevenson, 1998), economics (Arrow, 1973;

Granovetter, 1985) and democracy (Blind, 2007; Fukuyama, 1995). Francis Fukuyama (1995)

argues that the functioning of a community is embedded on the positive expectation of trust, and

this explicates our trust for doctors, lawyers, teachers, authorities, and on. This can be taken

further to argue that goes to the core of the functioning of a nation and not merely a society.

Trust is a pivotal ingredient in the building of societies, from which a nation emerges as we

cooperation within this whole because of particular expectations. The paying of taxes, adhering

to legislations, obeying traffic signs, following and believing in the political pronouncements,

voting in local or national elections, civil obedience and so on requirement not only a certain

degree of suspicion of the political directorates but a degree of trust in government and socio-

political institutions. Thus, a healthy democracy relies on some degree of trust of the citizenry in

the various institutions (Blind, 2007), without which anarchy would have resulted. Blind

summarizes this aptly that “Trust, in this regard, emerges as one of the most important

ingredients upon which the legitimacy and sustainability of political systems are built” (2007, 3),

which emphasizes the role of cooperation in all of this.


       Nevertheless, there is a dichotomy here as some people may argue that cooperation does

not mean trust, but trust requires cooperation. We believe like Fukuyama that some cooperation

can be had by way of ‘formal rules and regulation’ and that this does not require trust but within

the context of democracy, litigation does not build trust nor does it provide a trajectory from the

need for trust. Hence this explicates the role of culture in trust and cooperation. Despite the

extensive legal frameworks that exist in the business world or government, people do not only

apply themselves to these advanced industrialized creations unconditionally as they combine the


                                                258
formal with the informal obligation of life to carry out their normal activities. Embedded in this

is the interdependence and reciprocity in all transaction of life.


       Trust Models: Jamaican Models


       Internationally, the construct of trust has been well examined in the discipline of

sociology, social psychology, economics and political sciences.        However, few Caribbean

scholars have investigated this phenomenon, and even fewer have explored this in Jamaica

[Bourne, & Beckford, 2008; Boxill, et al. 2007], and a few non-Caribbean intelligentsia have

look at the subject of trust, which includes Morgan (2005).


       In a cross-sectional nationally representative survey of some 1,595 Jamaicans who are 18

years and older, Boxill et al. find that 57.1% of respondents reported that people are ‘somewhat

trustworthy’, and 14.1% indicated ‘very trustworthy’. Concomitantly, the researchers find that

two of 7 predisposed factors determine interpersonal trust in Jamaica. The factors that are

statistically significant are (1) area of residence – i.e. rural area residents are more trusting

compared to urban area dwellers [β=0.107, p value = 0.001] – and (2) age of respondents – i.e.

that the older one becomes, the more they are trusting of other people [β= 0.140, p value=0.001].

Of the sampled respondents, the researcher did not state the number of respondents of the 1,595

that were used for the regression model neither did they show the explanatory power of the

interpersonal trust (i.e. regression) model to say how much age and area of residence explain of

change in interpersonal trust.


       Contrary to the work of Boxill et al. (2007), another study done by Bourne & Beckford

(2008) disagrees with the findings of the former researchers. Bourne, & Beckford, using data

collected for a study in 2006 by Powell, Bourne, & Waller (2007), applied logistic regression on


                                                 259
an observational data of some 1,338 nationally represented sample of Jamaicans by way of a

cross-sectional study, finds that generalized trust is explained by four of 12 predisposed factors.

The four factors explain 23.5% of the variance in generalized trust [Nagelkerke R square =

0.235, χ2 (44) =75.62, p value=0.001, -2Log likelihood=296.7, N=991).


       The factors are religiosity, confidence in sociopolitical institutions, the administration of

justice and gender of respondents. Bourne, & Beckford’s work reveals that confidence in

sociopolitical institutions contribute is the second most significant predictor of generalized trust

(Wald statistic = 9.857, p value = 0.001, 95% CI=1.543 to 6.520) to administration of justice

(Wald statistic = 12.404, p value = 0.001, 95% CI=0.148 to 0.580). They, also, find that men are

twice trusting as women (OR=1.93, p value = 0.049, 95% CI=1.004 to 3.917); and that the

highly religious (proxy by the frequency of church attendance excluding special occasions such

as weddings, christening, baptism, graduation, et cetera) are less likely to trust in reference to

someone who does not attend church (OR= 0.0304) [Wald statistic = 4.768, p value = 0.029,

95% CI=0.104 to 0.885]. An online cross-sectional study that was done on Jamaicans who were

born in at the last of the twentieth century of some 98 respondents find that men were more

generally more trusting (β= 0.626, p value= 0.001, 95% CI: 1.364 – 3.093) than their female

counterparts (β=0.207, p value = 0.001, 95% CI: 0.986 – 2.219). [Morgan, 2005]. Morgan also

finds that education is statistically related to generalized trust, which disagrees with both Boxill

et al. and Bourne, & Beckford’s (2008) works.




       Conceptual Framework




                                                260
       The cooperation between and among people that allow for different people with

particular culture, norms, nuances, and biases to coalesce in work, play and even participate in

war because they depend on some harmonious understanding between or among the parties, and

this is based on trust. Trust is a critical ingredient in society, and for the functioning of

democracy. Fukuyama summarizes this aptly when he says that “contracts allow strangers with

no basis for trust to work with one another, but the process works far more efficiently when the

trust exits.” (p. 150). This emphasizes the rationale why we depend on each other in business

and interpersonal relations.


       Some clerisies see the issues of trust and cooperation as major tenets in the general

framework of social capital. Hence, social capital is built on trust (Fukuyama, 1995), without

which there would be un-cooperation, disunity, conflicts, and unwarranted suspicion. In a

forward in the Professional Standards Branch’s document (2005), the former Commissioner of

the Jamaica Constabulary Force, Lucius Thomas, said that “… a police force that does not enjoy

the confidence of its society will be less than effective” (pp. 1-2).           It is evident from

Commissioner Thomas’ argument that co-operation, confidence and trust are interrelated issues.

But, what is level of trust (or distrust) in Jamaica? It should be noted here that in this paper, low

levels of trust is the used as a proxy for distrust, which means that they will be used

interchangeably from here onwards (see for example, Markόsczy, 2003).


       On the issue of trust in Jamaica, in a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of

some 1,338 Jamaicans, Powell, Bourne, & Waller (2007) found that approximately 4 out of

every 10 Jamaicans trust each other (i.e. 37.3%). This reality may appear alarming as it relates

to the degree of distrust (i.e. 6 out of 10) among the populace but the matter becomes even more

frightening when we look at the degree of trust in government.            The Caribbean scholars’

                                                261
observational data revealed that 8 out of every 100 Jamaicans trust the government – 8%.

(Powell, Bourne, & Waller, 2007).          A study done by the United Nations Development

Programme (UNDP) revealed that interpersonal trust in Belarus was 41.9%, Ukraine 27.2%,

Lithuania 29.9%, Russia 23.7%, Poland 18.9%, average interpersonal trust on an average in

Europe was 30.7%. (UNDP, ud). Hence, it may appear that distrust in Jamaica is too high, and

rightfully so this is the case, but with an international context, interpersonal distrust is very high

throughout the world. Despite the seemingly belief by many people that Jamaicans need to

rebuild interpersonal trust, interpersonal trust in Jamaica is higher than that of Europe but

marginally lower compared to that Belarus. Francis Fukuyama (1995), although he did not

provide data on the level of interpersonal trust for Japan and Germany, argues that these societies

experience a high degree of interpersonal trust and went on further to say that “…[these]

societies…can create large organizations without state support” (p.). This speaks to the relation

between trust and cooperation, economic development and endowment of social capital. But,

what is trust?


       There are many conceptual definitions of trust, which include a psychological state.

Rousseau and her colleagues cite that “trust is a psychological state comprising the intention to

accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another”

(1998, p.393; see also Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 712). Like Rousseau et al. (1998),

Lewicki et al (2006; 1998) believe that an area of trust is psychological, which include

willingness, vulnerability, expectation, disposition, affective processes and intention. Rousseau

et al. went further to say that “an individual’s belief is, and willingness to act on the basis of, the

words, actions, and decisions of another” (1998, p. 438), which is concurred by Mayer, et al

1995. Mayer et al. went further than other intelligentsia, when they say that:


                                                 262
       Where one depends on another's good will, one is necessarily vulnerable to the limits of
       that good will. One leaves others an opportunity to harm one when one trusts. …Trust
       then … is accepted vulnerability to another's possible but not expected ill will (or lack of
       good will) toward one (1995, p.235)

       Those works forward the fact that expectation is a function of trust, and that vulnerability

is a crucial requirement in trust formulation. Trust is built on expectation that commences on the

first appear of both parties, and even thought this is based on limited information it is a part of all

cultures for people to form opinions on the first impression.


       Trust is more than a psychological state. Lewicki et al. (2006) in an article titled ‘Models

of interpersonal trust development:..’ identify two components of trust.               These are (1)

psychological trust and (2) behavioural trust. We have already discussed psychological trust, so

we will now review the latter state of trust as classified by Lewicki et al. (2006). Behavioural

trust is seen as rational-choice behaviour, which is expressed in cooperative choice games. (See

also, Hardin, 1993). Embedded in this type of trust are the choices that are regularly made by

people in their interpersonal relations with each other, and that this is based on rational

expectations of observable behaviour.


       The aforementioned scholars’ definitions of trust are separate on psychological, or on the

behavioural traditions. In each of these traditions, the intelligentsia presented a one-dimensional

approach to trust, as they believe that trust is the opposite of distrust. Such a situation means that

trust cannot operate simultaneously with distrust, but that low trust is a proxy for distrust. A part

from those trust models that were previously mentioned, there are other types of trust. Outside

of the space argued earlier by other scholars, the extended trust discourse also includes the

following areas – (1) rational non-empiricists, (2) non-rational empiricists, (3) non-rational non-

empiricists, and (4) rational experimentalists.


                                                  263
       Uslaner (2002), on the other hand, places trust into 3 models. These are (1) strategic, (2)

particularized and (3) generalized trust. Strategic trust speaks to expectation of other behaviour’s

with regard to a particular outcome, which is also forwarded by other scholars for example,

James, & Sykuta, 2004.       This is not different from what personality theorists have been

examining for decade, first impression and trust.       Generalized trust, on the other hand, is

conceptualized based on the assumption that generally most people can be trust (see for example

Hardin, 1993, Baiser, 1986), and is frequently operationalized by the use of a survey question –

“Generally speaking, would say that most people are essentially good and can be trusted, or that

most people are not essentially good and cannot be trusted” (Powell, Bourne, Waller, 2007,

p.109; see also, James, & Sykuta, 2004, p. 1). Whereas, particularized trust is based on certain

persons or groups can be trusted, theoretically, those conceptual definitions are still within the

psychological state as they require cognition, expectation and vulnerability.


       Furthering the trust discourse


       The issue of trust as well as confidence is imperative to interpersonal and business

relationships.   However, the matter of trust goes beyond the aforementioned issues to the

bedrock upon which democracy functions. Powell, Bourne, & Waller (2007) say that, “the

efficiency, adjustment, and survival of individuals and groups within a society depends heavily

on the presence of …trust” (p. 22). It is within this contextual background that we believe that it

is fitting to examine interpersonal trust in the Jamaica Constabulary force.


       Like the rest of Jamaica, the police force is affected by the same set of challenges as the

averaged Jamaicans. Hence, the degree of distrust that is pervasive in the country may be similar

among police officers. “The basic feeling of distrust leaves people unsure of their control over


                                                264
the world and hence fearful that the world is either against them or indifferent to them” (Powell,

Bourne, & Waller, 2007, 22). Embedded in the perspective expressed by Powell et al. is the

difficulty with which police officers are likely to interface with the citizenry in carrying out their

mandate. The issue is how do police officers effectively operate within a culture of distrust, and

more so when this is among its membership. If they do distrust themselves, then some level of

fear will always be present and this is an ingredient for anarchy. There can be no cooperation

among police and the effectively execution of their duties, if there is not that civic culture of trust

among themselves. Then there is the issue of interpersonal distrust between the citizenry and the

police, and the projective possibility of social disintegration of the society due to this distrust,

low cooperation and the separation of human relations between the two aforementioned groups.

Although we are cognizant that trust between the police and public is vital component in the

social and economic development, in this study will not be addressing this aspect with the

general context of trust (or distrust).


        One of the critical factors in the execution of their (police) duties is do they trust each

other. When a group of police officers venture in an inner city area in attempting to tackle

upsurge of crime and belligerence, each officer operates under the assumption that his/her

colleague will be protecting him/her, while he/she seeks to address the external issue of crime

and belligerence in the particular milieu. Embedded in this act are the vulnerability of each

officer, and the implied thrust of his/her life to a fellow officer. Hence, in carrying out their

assigned tasks, police officers expect their colleagues to protect them from arm, which could

include other rogue cops.       This situation speaks to the openness, reliability, vulnerability,

positive expectations (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995), and the level of trust each police

officer has come to expect from his/her colleague in order to affect the duties. Ergo, cooperate is


                                                 265
an expected behaviour that each officer expect his/her fellow officer to give him/her. This is an

implication of trust. (See also Lewicki, Tomlinson, & Gillespie, 2006). Hence, trust is based on

cooperation, which means that if cooperation is high, trust is high and vice versa.


       Then within a trustworthy environment, the psychological stability of the trustee (i.e.

responder or the second mover) is high. The trustee, in this milieu, is able is to operate without

fear, reservation or suspicion that hinders positive behaviour and higher productivity (See also

Fukuyama, 1995). As such, any study of interpersonal trust (or distrust) at this time among police

officers is not merely about trust but an attempt to better understand the dynamics of

cooperation, the behavioural tradition of trust, the psychological tradition, and the implication of

trust (or distrust) on job performance and productivity.


       Although the Jamaican public has been ardently forwarding the claim that there are

police excesses, in particular police killings (see for example, Headley, 2002), some pundits

argue that this is not the case as the police are merely defending themselves against the

possibility of fear of life.   Contrary to this position, some people are antagonistic to this

perspective as they believe that state killings are excesses which are not fostering any unison

between the community and the Force.           Within this discourse police killings, excesses,

corruption, breaches, and the unfavourable response from the state are fueling a culture of

distrust, uncooperative behaviour, and skepticism that will not provide a platform with which

the public and the police will work together in an effort to reduce crime and belligerence.


       Professor Stephen Vasciannie (2008) in ‘The Cobb Family Lecture 2008’ spoke to the

divide that exists between the various groups in the nation on the issue of police killings. He

says that:


                                                266
       Jamaican society is sharply divided on the question of police killings. On one side, many
       will argue that police killings amount to fundamental breaches of the right to life, with
       such killings being perpetrated as part of deliberate schemes for the destruction of
       persons perceived by State agents as criminal elements. In support of this viewpoint, the
       strikingly high level of police killings, the disproportion between police killings and the
       number of police killed by civilians and the fact that the level of police killings has been
       at a high level for over three decades, all suggest that the present situation is not
       accidental. (Vasciannie, 2008, p.15).


       Embedded in Vasciannie’s perspective is rationale for the distrust between the police and

the Force, and the low level of confidence Jamaican have for state institutions (see Powell,

Bourne, & Waller, 2007), which further highlight the divide between the aforementioned groups.

While the discourse continues in earnest, trust in institutions is falling incrementally and many

persons are angry, non-cooperative, segregated and frustrated with the sociopolitical structure.

Ergo, they are highly likely to replace anger of police killings and excesses with distrust, low

cooperation, and take a retaliatory stance. Irrespective of well defined and elongated litigations

that are present within the democratic society, people will not invariably accept perceived

injustices. In Jamaica, whether an individual is pro-life or pro-choice, police excesses are a

reality within the geopolitical landscape (Harriott, 2000), in addition to political corruption

(Barnett, The Carter Centre, 1999). Thus, like Vasciannie, Harriott, and Charles (2003), they

have failed to address the issue of distrust that is been developed among police officers and/or

generally among society members.


       Police officers are people likened to civilians, and so they know of some of these

excesses and extra judicial killings by member of their own organization. However, what is

protecting many of these rogue officers is the ‘brotherhood’ philosophy that exists in the Force.

Here we are not forwarding a claim that ‘good’ officers are silence by default or by possibility of

knowing that they may falter in the future and that they would hope that their colleagues protect

                                               267
them, but that they are sometimes cognizant of these police excesses. Some members of the

Force are equally corrupted as civilians, which fuels the criminality in the society. A report

made by senior members in the Force that some 27 police officers have been placed before the

courts for various breaches of corruption since the start of 2008.


       One of the challenges of some persons is that they are not analyzing the perception of

police corruption and misdemeanours or the impression formational. It should be noted that

even when the cases that are brought against those accused officers have been dismissed by the

courts, the distrust and perception remains sometimes as well as the initial impression formation.

The matter of the dismissal of the case is sometimes seen as way of protecting the system;

instead of upholding law and order, justice and fair play. First impression is difficult to

reconstruct, and it also affect people’s willingness to interact with each other as the acquired

impression formation opens an avenue for trust, distrust, cooperation and give a particular social

perception to the receiver. Accompanying the reason drawback to impression formation is

expectancy effect as seen throughout lends of the recipient, and how this may leave a lasting

effect on the person’s psyche. The researchers are cognizant of the social perception, which

includes impression formation but because of the nature of this study we will not proceed into a

consummate discourse of this construct. Nevertheless, impression formation as a component of

social perception can be read in Zebrowitz (1990). However, what is clear from impression

formation is that if an individual formulates a particular perspective on the first occasion, this

will be done on limited information. Among the reasons for distrust is limited information and

behaviour that is formed on first impression (see for example, Morgan, 2005), which is a

commonplace practice in our social world.




                                                268
       Some officer may feel vulnerable in wanting to trust other officer during the source of the

job. In the execution of their duties, police requires a high degree of cooperation and trust of

colleagues. The question which arises is how can police officers trust trust of other colleagues

within the context of the reality of some corrupt officers?   There are police officers who are

skeptical of other officers, but this does on mean that the ‘good’ cops are gullible because they

are continuously working in an environment of distrust and skepticism. Does it mean that trustful

persons are gullible? Markόczy (2003) finds that people who are trusting of others are not

necessarily gullible (see also, Rotter, 1980) but that some are which holds equally true for those

who distrust. Another scholar argues that the mere fact of trustfulness indicates vulnerability and

gullibility of the trustee (the individual who trust the other) (Jones, 1996 in Markόczy, 2003).

The rationale offered by Jones is that trusting individuals based this on selective information

about the “truster” (i.e. the proposer or the first mover) and an optimistic perception of others.


        It appears that the premise of Jones’ argument is based on the previous work of Webster

(1913 in Markόczy, 2003) who writes that trust is sometimes a resistance to evidential

information. A study done by Garske (1976) reveals that a positive statistical relation exists

between trustfulness, gullibility and conformity. This perspective is opposed by other clerisies

that trustfulness requires ‘vigilance’ (Yamagish, Kikuchi, & Kosugi, 1999; see also Markόczy,

2003). Yamagish et al. refer to people who are prudent trustees as vigilant in their behaviours

and gullible as some people would have you believe that trustfulness requires gullibility. Hence,

the side that is felt undiscussed in this debate is the distrust that police officers have for their

colleagues, how are they does this affect their psyche, and what does it mean for job

performance?




                                                269
       People are not inanimate objects, events or things; hence, they are expected to be

influenced by internal as well as external stimuli. When these stimuli are interface within the

cognition of humans, we should expect behavioural changes. If we are examine distrust within

the context of the study, an individual who distrusting of another will not allow him/herself to be

vulnerable but will be primarily skeptical in interacting with the “truster”. This is highlighted in a

study carried out by Dibben, & Davies (2004), in which they examine public trust (or distrust)

following a number of scandals on different malpractices in Bristol (i.e. General Medical

Council). Dibben, & Davies, highlight a significant issue that arose after the scandals surfaced

and the public began processing the event. They write that:


       British public health care (the NHS) has, in particular, come under intense scrutiny
       following widespread public dismay over numerous scandals (Alder Hey, Bristol, various
       malpractice cases at the General Medical Council and, most notorious of all, Harold
       Shipman). In each of these cases "public trust betrayed" has emerged as a common
       theme. (Dibben, & Davies, 2004, p. 88)

       In this paper we not become engrossed in a discourse on trust in health professionals or

health institutions, but the aforementioned illustrations is applicable in reinforcing the stance that

distrust about any particular individual or agent, when internalized by the trustee, results in

resentment, noncooperation from henceforth, the psyche of the trustee changes and this new

distrust is difficult to convert into any of trusting from hereafter. Police officers are human, and

so they are subjected to the same set of stimuli that civilians undergo, despite their exposure to

litigation and self-defense tactics. Concomitantly, the issue of a police distrusting a colleague is

not removed from him/her because he/she has a firearm. The police officer is no different from a

civilian in regard to fear, cooperation, confidence, trust (or distrust) in person or sociopolitical

institutions, and may think that he/she would be prey to ‘corrupt’ cops.




                                                 270
       The likeliness of cop being armed, killed and abused by rogue cop must have an adverse

effect on the psyche of other officers. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the US department

of justice in a document titled ‘Principles of good policing: Avoiding belligerence between

police and citizens’, forward the view that there exist a need to bring the “right type of people in

law enforcement” (US department of Justice, 2003, p.18) as there exists a perception that the

selection process in recruitment of trainee officers is highly insufficient in removing the ‘bad

cops’. Because of the high levels of police corruption and misdemeanour, people are asking for

psychological evaluation as a part of the selection process.


       The aim of this study is to critically examine interpersonal trust within the Jamaica

Constabulary Force (the Force) at a “snapshot” in time, and to identify factors that affect trust

among police officers as well as those that influence morale. In an attempt to unearth whether or

not this is a different between interpersonal trust among the public and that in the Force –

interpersonal trust in Jamaica being 37.3% (Powell, Bourne, & Waller, 2007) - we embarked on

an explanatory cross-sectional research that provided invaluable information on the

aforementioned construct. Because interpersonal trust is a vital ingredient in cooperation, social

capital, all forms of development, job satisfaction, productivity (Fukuyama, 1995) and

democracy, we know that a study on the matter of interpersonal trust in the Force is timely and

long overdue. Within the context of a high degree of crime in the island (PIOJ, 1990-2007), and

increasingly more police officers are being brought before the courts on charges of corruption

and/or misconduct and within the general setting of the low level of detection in this regard, we

are interested to ascertaining the degree of interpersonal trust in the Force. It should be repeated

continuously that trust is more than expectation, vulnerability, cooperation and so forth as it is a

critical component in healthy human social relations. As if people do not trust an individual,


                                                271
even there are litigations that will provide some basic cooperation, they are less likely to be

engaged in monologue with you, share information with you or build effective societies with

those they do not trust (Bigley, & Pearce, 1998; Pfeffer, & Sutton, 1999). In an milieu where

there is low morale, job performance will be lower (Jack Halloran & Douglas Benton, 1987)

Halloran & Benton in a text titled ‘Applied Human Relations. An Organization Approach’

offered an explanation for the association between morale and job performance, when they wrote

that “It [morale] affects our attitude and willingness to work, which in turn affect that of others.

People with high morale have confidence in themselves, in the future, and in others. High

morale permits taking minor irritations in stride and working under pressure without blowing up”

(1987, p. 103). Hence, the matter must be examined within the Force as it will provide some

explanation on some of the current misdemeanours that exist and other areas of concerns in job

performance of the Jamaican cop, and how they relate to the public.


       Data and Method


       Between April to May 2008 a descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted on some

400 police officer across the 19-division in Jamaica (see Appendix II). It is a stratified random

sample, with an instrument of –questions. The instrument (i.e. questionnaire) is sub-divided into

demographic, sociopolitical and … The questionnaires were collected by a group of police

officers who were trained in social research methodology for a period of four-month before the

actual beginning of the observational data collection exercise. Data were collected and stored

using the Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS 12.0). All the variables that were

predisposed for this study were conceptualized followed by performing descriptive statistics,

which were used to examine the background information on the key variables; then, normal

logistic regression technique was used to model the factors that may determine the dependent

                                                272
variable.   Cronbach alpha was used to ascertain the reliability of a final construct, which

constitutes a number of questions. The model was tested for its usefulness and its strength of

predictability. The sample error for this study is ± 5%, at a 95% Confidence Level.


       Operational definitions


       Interpersonal trust. This variable is defined as an interaction between or among people

in which they accept vulnerability based on positive expectation of others, and the willingness to

reciprocate this expectation based on their knowledge of others, degree of shared values, and

identity. Hence, interpersonal trust is measured based on an individual’s response to “Normally

do you trust people”, with 4 options (1) always, (2) sometimes, (3) neutral and (4) never.


Interpersonal distrust. This is a nominal variable which means the “lack of confidence in the

other, a concern that the other act so as to harm one, that does not care about one’s welfare or

intends to act harmfully, or is hostile (Govier, 1999, p. 240 in Lewicki, Tomlinson, & Gillespie,

2006, p.998).


Self trust. Self trust is a Likert Scale question, which was asked – “Do you trust yourself”. The

option were always, sometimes, neutral or never.


Trust in the Police. This Likert Scale question pry into generalized trust in police officers – the
question was “Generally speaking do you trust other police officers’?

Jamaica Constabulary Force.

Institutional Trust. This is the summation of 8 Likert Scale questions, with each question
ranging from 1 to 10, where 1 indicates the lowest and 10 the highest trust. All the institutions
that were used for these questions are internal entities within the Jamaica Constabulary Force.
The question read “What is the extent of your trust in the following institutions – NIB Kingfish;
BSI; PSB; CIB; Regular; Current hierarchy; Police Federation; Police Officers Association.




                                                273
Fear. A number of Likert Scale questions were used to proxy level of fear in police officers for
other colleagues. We proxy fear in police officers using a number of Likert Scale variables.
These are as follows – (1) “What is your level of fear reporting an act of misconduct against your
colleague”;, and (2) “What is your level of fear reporting an act of corruption against your
colleague” The options for each question were very high, high, average, low and very low.

Quality of life Index. This “…is a state of living in which you are in balance or alignment [with
life]” (Ries, & Murphy, 1999, p. 5). Hence, using Powell, Bourne, & Waller’s work (2007) that
embodied Maslow’s Needs hierarchy, we computed a ‘quality of life index’ based on the
summation of 5-item question. Each question that was asked ranged from a low of 1 to a high of
10. The QoL Index ranges from 1 to a maximum of 50 – where from 1 to 33 indicates low;
moderate is 20 to 34 , and high means 35 to 50; with a Cronbach alpha of 0.697 (≈ 0.7). The
questions were – “Do you feel completely secure about the state of your health”; “Do you feel
completely secure about being able to afford basic necessities?”; “Do you have a life full of love,
warm, friendship and good family relations?”; “Do you get complete recognition and respect
from others?”, and “Are you satisfied that you are realizing the fullest potential of life?”

Negative affective psychological condition. This variable is measured based on “Do you ever
give up hope or feel that you would ever do anything worthwhile in life?” This was Likert Scale
question that ranges from 1 to 10. It is the summation of 5 Likert Scale questions, with the
maximum being 46 and the minimum is 2. Low ranges from 0 to 17, moderate is 18 through 31
and high being 32 to 46.

Socialization. For this study socialization was proxy using parental educational attainment, in
particular mother’s educational level. Given that mothers are primarily the ones that nurture
children in Jamaica for most of their earlier years, we believe that the socialization of the child
would substantially be done by the mothers.

Morale. It is defined as “a reflection of the general tone or esprit de corps of a collective group
of personalities; the mental condition of a group with respect to cheerfulness or confidence”
(Halloran, & Benton, 1987, p.120). This variable was measured using a single question that
reads – “How would you describe the present state of morale within the JCF?’. It is a Likert
Scale question that ranges from very high, high, average, and low to very low.




                                                 274
Results: Demographic Characteristics of the Sample


       Of the sampled population (N=400), 61.4% were males compared to 38.6% females. The

majority of the sample was in the age cohort of 26 to 35 years (40.6%), with 26.4% in the age

group 36 to 45years, 16.8% were within the age group of 18 to 25 years compared to 13.5%

within the age 46 to 55 years and 2.8% reported being 56 years and over. The mean year of

service was 11.5±9.2 yrs. In addition to what has been said, average quality of life in the JCF is

high. (see Table 1). Despite the high quality of life of members, the sampled population reported

a moderate degree of negative psychological condition (mean = 22.5 out of 46 ±9.3). (see Table

1.1). Further analysis of the negative psychological condition of respondents revealed at 3 out

every 10 police office reported a low negative psychological condition with 5 out of every 10

indicated moderate compared to 2 out of every 10 stated high negative psychological condition.

Embedded in this finding is the fact that 7 out of every 10 officer is moderate and higher

negative psychological conditions – that is, majority of officers are suffering from negative

psychological conditions. And the finding records that only 3 out of every 10 police officers are

mildly suffering from negative psychological conditions (i.e. 35%).


       Approximately 67.8% of the respondents indicated that they trust other police officers,

sometimes, compared to 20.1% who reported that they were ‘neutral’, with 10% indicating

‘never’ and 2% mentioned that they ‘always’ trust other officers.        Similar responses were

observed for interpersonal trust as 70.2% revealed that they sometimes trust other people, with

16.3% indicated that they were neutral, 9.0% mentioned ‘never’ and 4.5% reported that they

always trust other people. On the other hand, 76.4% of the sampled population revealed that

they always trust themselves, with 18.8% indicating that they sometimes trust themselves, 3.8%


                                               275
revealed that they are ‘neutral’ compared to 1% reported that they never trust themselves. (see

Table 1.1). In relation to morale in the Force (JCF), approximately 93% of the total population

(i.e. 9 out of every 10 people) reported very low to moderate morale. Of the 93%, 53% (i.e. 5

out of every 10 persons) cited a very low to low morale compared to 41% who indicated

moderate morale (i.e. 4 out of every 10 individuals). Comparatively, 1% of the total respondents

reported that they had a very high morale compared to 19% who indicated a very low morale.

(see Table 1.1). Furthermore, 6% cited that they had a high morale in reference to 33% who

indicated a low morale. It follows that very low to low morale is 8 times more than high to very

high morale – this means that for every 1 police officer who indicated a high to very high

morale, there are 8 police officers who have recorded very low to low morale. Hence, the police

force is hemorrhaging from a morale dilemma. When we compare moderate to low morale, low

morale outstrip the former by 1.3 times.


       This then brings us to the question of trust. Can morale be low and trust be high? The

simple answer is yes. All the different typologies of trust indicated some degree of trust.

However, 9 out of every 100 police officer indicated that they never trusted other people (i.e.

distrust) compared to 1 out of every 100 who do not trust themselves, with 10% who reported

that they do not trust other police officers. (see Table 1.1).




                                                 276
Table 1.1: Demographic characteristic of sample respondents


Quality of life                                         34.2±7.9, Range = 44:50 - 6

Length of year of service                               11.5±9.2 yrs.; Range=42: 44- 1.

Institutional Trust                                     44.2±13.3; Range = 77: 80 - 3

Individual’s educational attainment
  Primary                                               2.8%
  Secondary                                             46%
  Post-secondary                                        17.9%
 College and University                                 33%

Subjective social class: Lower class                    42%
                        Middle class                    54.6%
                         Upper class                    3.4%

Sex: Male                                               61.4%
     Female                                             38.6%

Interpersonal Trust: Always                             4.5%
                     Sometimes                          70.2%
                     Neutral                            16.3%
                     Never                              9.0%

Self Trust: Always                                      76.4%
            Sometimes                                   18.8%
            Neutral                                     3.8%
            Never                                       1.0%

Trust in police: Always                                 2.0%
                Sometimes                               67.8%
                Neutral                                 20.1%
                Never                                   10.1%

Morale: Very high                                       1.0%
        High                                            5.8%
        Moderate                                        40.7%
        Low                                             33.4%
        Very low                                        10.1%

Negative Affective psychologic conditions               22.5±9.3; Range = 44: 46 – 2




                                            277
       Deconstructing trust in the police force revealed that 10% of total population indicated

that they never trusted rank and file police officers (i.e. officers below the rank of and including

inspectors) compared to 20% who reported distrust in those in the officer corp (from the rank of

inspector to below commissioner of police). This means that twice the number of respondents

who reported distrust in those in the officer corp compared to those in rank and file. This solicits

the question ‘what is the degree of trust in the hierarchy of the Jamaica Constabulary Force.


       On examining police officers degree of trust in the current hierarchy of the JCF, 4 out of

every 10 people reported that they had a low trust in the hierarchy, with 4 out every 10

respondents indicated that they had a moderate trust in the current hierarchy compared to 2 out of

every 10 respondents who reported that they had high trust in the current hierarchy.

Collectively, 4 times more the number of respondents indicated that they had at most moderate

trust in the current hierarchy compared to at least high trust in the current hierarchy. Separately,

the same number of respondents had a low trust in the current hierarchy (i.e. 4 out of every 10

people) compared to those who indicated moderate trust, with 2 out of 10 people reported a high

trust. Thus, two-fifths of the police officers have a low trust (i.e. distrust) in the current

hierarchy, with the same having moderate trust compared to one-fifth with high trust.




                                                278
Results: Quality of Life


The overall quality of life of police officer is high (i.e. mean quality of life is 34.6 out of 50).

However, the quality of life of those who indicated that they are in the middle class is the

greatest (mean =36 ± 0.4) with is greater than the national average in the force compared to that

of the lower class that is 33 (i.e. mean ± 0.6) and means quality of life of the upper class is 34.7

(± 2.2). Hence, there is a statistical association between quality of life and subjective social class

– F statistic [2, 378] = 6.006.


        With respect to quality of life of the different educational level of Jamaican police

officers, the mean quality of life was 34 [(out of 50) ± 7.9]. Further examination revealed that

those who indicated that they have at most primary level education had a mean quality of life of

39 (± 9.8) with those with secondary education 35 (± 7.7), post secondary (34 ± 8.2), college (34

± 7.1) and University (32 ± 8.4). Using Analysis of Variance (i.e. ANOVA), there is a statistical

association between quality of life and educational level of JCF members – F statistic [4, 388] =

2.6, p value = 0.038.


        Furthermore, a correlation between quality of life and negative psychologic conditions of

police officer revealed that there is an indirectly statistical relationship between the two

aforementioned variables – Pearson’s Moment Correlation Coefficient = - 0.139, p value < 0.01.

Embedded in this finding is that an increase in negative psychologic condition, reduces the

quality of life of the Jamaican police office.


        Does morale influences ones quality of life? The answer is a resounding yes. Using one-

way Analysis of Variance (i.e. ANOVA), we found that there is a statistical association between

quality of life and morale of Police Officers – F statistic [2,392] = 10.258, p value = 0.001.

                                                 279
Those police officers who reported a moderacy in morale had a quality of life that was greater

(35.8 ± 7.4) than the average quality of life for the sampled population (34.2 ± 7.8). Those who

indicated that they had a high to a very high morale had the greatest quality of life (37.5 ± 6.7)

compared to those who had a very low to a low morale (32.6 ± 7.9).


       Having recognized that quality of life of JCF members is different based on educational

type and subjective social classes; we think it fitting to deconstruct subjective social class by

educational type. We found that there is no statistical relation between ones educational type and

his/her social class classification – χ2 (6.5), p value =0.4> 0.05. Literature have shown that

educational level is among the variable that can be used to proxy social class (see Derick

Gordon, 1989), but the views of police officers in Jamaica contradict this established cosmology.

Hence, this gives an insight into the psyche of police officers.


       An important issue that have not been explore so far is the quality of life of older

compared to younger police officers? The inquiry revealed that there is no statistical difference

between the difference age cohort in the JCF – χ2(8)=8.26, p value = 0.220 > 0.05; N=391.

Embedded in this closeness in quality of life of police officers who are youth (ages less than 25)

compared to older police officers (ages 56 years and older) – who would have spent considerable

more time in the force compared to their younger counterparts. Deconstructing the

aforementioned findings showed that officers who classified themselves as youth some 49% of

them had the highest quality of life compared to 42% of those in the age cohort 26 to 35 years,

with 56% of those ages 36 to 55 years and this was 58% for those in the age group 56 years and

older. This finding is pointing us in the direction of distrust, morale and possible corruption.

       Notwithstanding want to solve many of the society’s social ill and given that police

officers are knowingly involved in corruption, it might seem fitting to close the door on this

                                                280
finding. However before we begin casting stone at the any party, we must ensure that perceptions

are reality. So, let us examine the social class, and educational level of the members within the

JCF. A cross tabulation between subjective social class and age cohort revealed that 54% of the

youth indicated that they are within the middle class compared to 49% of those ages 26 to 35,

59% of respondents who are 36 to 55 years and 57% of those in the age cohort 56 years and

older. In the same cross tabulation table, we found that 43% of the youth reported being in the

lower class, 47% of those in the age group 26 to 35 years, with 37% being in the age cohort 36 to

55 and 39% in the age group 56 years and over- there was no statistical difference between the

age cohorts and views within the particular subjective social class- χ2 (6) =3.04, p value =0.8 >

0.05.


        The examination between educational level and age cohorts revealed a statistical

association between the two variables - χ2 (9) =35.24, p value =0.001< 0.05. The relation

between the two aforementioned variables was an inverse one, which means that the older people

have a lower educational level compared to their younger age cohort’s colleagues – the single

correlation is 0.288. In deconstructing the association, we found that 33% of the youth had

tertiary level education compared to 43% of those in the age cohort 26 to 36 years, 26% of those

in the age group 36 to 55 years, with 22% of those in the age cohort 56 years and over. (see

Appendix I for more information).


        The educational levels and age cohorts divide in JCF are substantially different. Of the

total population, 23% of them have tertiary level education compared to 4% of police officers

who are 56 years and over, with 7% of them being 36 to 46 years. This means that young (ages

35 years and below) police officers are 6.4 times more education at the tertiary level than their



                                              281
older colleagues (ages 56 years and older). On the other hand, police officers between the ages

of 35 and 56 years are one-third less educated at the university level compared to young officers.


       Trust in the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF)


       When the respondents were asked “Do you see the organization as a trustworthy on?”

98.8% (n=395) responded to this question. Of total valid population, 20.8% reported that they

institution is a trust worthy one compared to 38% who revealed no, with 41.3% stating maybe.

Further examination of the aforementioned variable by sex of the respondents, we found that

there is a difference between the views of males compared to those of females – χ2 (2) =7.5, p

value = 0.05. It was revealed that of the male population, 25% reported that they see the police

organization as trustworthy compared to 14% for females. Thus, males are approximately 2

more likely to report that the JCF is trustworthy than their female counterparts. These findings

revealed that 4 out of every 10 respondents believe that female perceive that the JCF is not

trustworthy, whereas this was 3 out of 10 people of the male sample and a simple distribution

was observed for the may be category – 4 out of 10 people for both males and females.


       On the matter of “Are you comfortable going on daily patrol with your colleague?” 2 out

of every 10 respondents reported that they always felt comfortable going out with other police

officers on operations compared to 6 out of every 10 who indicated some, with 2 out of 10

indicated that they are neutral compared to 3 out of 100 who indicated never to the previous

stated question.


       This followed with the question “would you attend court and give evidence against your

colleague with fear of being hurt?” 40% of the total population indicated a ‘yes’ compared to

28% who reported ‘no’, with 33% reported a ‘not sure’. When this was followed by “would you


                                               282
trust your colleagues with sensitive information? Approximately 41% gave a moderate answer,

with 37% a high response compared to 22% who revealed a low response.


        Deconstructing Trust in particular branches within the Jamaica                                        Constabulary     Force
(JCF)


        An overwhelming majority of respondents (65%) reported to have trusted NIB Kingfish

the most compared to 45% in BSI, 41% PSB, 36% CIB and lastly by regular 30%. Hence, the

least level of distrust was for NIB Kingfish. (see Figure 0).




                                             Regular




                                                 CIB
          Trust in particular branches




                                                 PSB



                                                                                                                    High
                                                 BSI
                                                                                                                    Moderate
                                                                                                                    Low

                                         NIB Kingfish



                                                         0      10         20   30      40     50   60        70

                                                 NIB Kingfish        BSI         PSB         CIB    Regular
                               High                     65.3         44.7        40.5        36.3    30.2
                                Moderate                27.8         40.8        40.3        44.8    47.6
                               Low                      6.9          14.5        19.2        18.9    22.2

                                                                                Percentage

        Figure 0: Trust in particular branches within the JCF


                                                                                283
       Perception of vision of the JCF in the Next 15 years


In wanting to ascertain the police’s views of the general force, we asked the question “What is

your vision of the force in the next 15 years?” With respect to the aforementioned question,

95.3% of the total population (n=400) responded to this question. Of those who answered the

question, 22% of them reported that they believe that the things will become worse in the force

come the next 15 years, with 22% indicated that things will be the same, and 56% reported that

they are expected better things in the organization come 15 years time. Only 23% of the 56%

reported that events will be much better in the force.


       When ‘perception of vision of the JCF in the Next 15 years was cross tabulated by sex of

respondents, 20% of the males reported that they are expected worse from the JCF come the next

15 years compared to 25% of the females, with there being no statistical difference between the

views of males and that of females – χ2 (3) = 1.249, p value = 0.741 > 0.05.




                                                284
Hypothesis 1.1: A relation between Satisfactions with Current Salary by Sex




We found that there is no statistical association between satisfaction with current salary and sex

of respondents. Thus, it follows that there is no statistical difference between the views of males

and those of females in relation to satisfaction of current salary - χ2 (2) = 3.392, ρ value = 0.183.

(see Table 2.1).




   Table 2.1: Satisfaction with current salary by Sex of respondents in %, N=378

                                                                   Sex

                                                         Male         Female



                                     Satisfied           7.2          10.6

                   Satisfaction:     Not sure            6.4          2.8



                                     Not satisfied       86.4         86.4

                                     Total               236          142

                       χ2 (2) = 3.392, ρ value = 0.183




                                                 285
Hypothesis 1.2: There is a statistical association between Subjective Social Class and Degree of
Satisfaction with current salary


Of those who indicated that they are within the lower class, 89.3% reported that they are

dissatisfied with their current salary compared to 85.9% who classify themselves as being in the

middle class; with 76.9% of those in the upper class revealed that they were dissatisfied with

their current salary. However, there is no statistical difference between the view of those in each

subjective social class - χ2 (4) = 2.191, ρ value = 0.701.




Table 2.2: Satisfaction with current salary by Degree of Satisfaction with current salary in
%, N=378

                                          Subjective social class



                                                 Lower        Middle        Upper



                              Satisfied          6.9          8.7           15.4


           Satisfaction:      Not sure           3.8          5.3           7.7



                              Not satisfied      89.3         85.9          76.9



                              Total              159          206           13




                                                 286
Hypothesis 2: There is a relationship between Self Trust and Educational Level




On investigating self trust and educational level, we found that there is a statistical association

between the two aforementioned variables – χ2 (1) = 167.26, ρ value = 0.001- with there being a

weak relationship – single correlation coefficient phi = 0.34. Further analysis of the findings

revealed that respondents who had a primary level education had the greatest degree of self trust

(82%) compared to those with post-secondary (72%), secondary (76%) and tertiary (78%). (see

Table 3).




Table 3: Self Trust and Educational Level in %, N=394

                                               Educational
                     Level

                                        Primary       Secondary      Post          College
                                                                     secondary     &University

                     Always             81.8          76.4           71.8          77.7

   Self trust:       Sometimes          18.2          19.8           25.4          19.0


                     Neutral            0.0           2.7            2.8           6.2

                     Never              0.0           1.1            0.0           1.5


                     Total              11            182            71            130

                      χ2 (1) = 167.26, ρ value = 0.001, phi = 0.34




                                               287
Hypothesis 3: There is a relationship between Self Trust and Morale in the JCF


On investigating whether a statistical relation exists between self-trust and morale in the JCF, we

found that there is no statistical association between the 2 aforementioned variables. It follows

that morale in the JCF is not affecting self-trust - χ2 (6) = 7.395, ρ value = 0.286; neither is self-

trust affecting morale. (see Table 4)




                    Table 4: Self Trust and Morale in JCF in %, N=396

                                                                  Morale in JCF

                                         Always           Sometimes Neutral         Never


                        High             5.3              10.8       13.3           25.0

      Self trust:       Moderate         41.3             39.2       26.7           50.0


                        Low              53.5             50.0       60.0           25.1

                        Total            303              74         15             4

                        χ2 (6) = 7.395, ρ value = 0.286




                                                 288
Hypothesis 4: There is a relationship between Self Trust and Trust for ones Mother




An investigation between trusting of ones mother and self-trust revealed that a statistical

association between the 2 aforementioned variables - χ2 (9) = 51.4, ρ value = 0.001. The

association is a moderate one – single correlation coefficient, 0.348. This relation means that

self-trust influences trusting ones mother, and vice versa. Approximately 85% of those who

indicated to ‘always’ trust themselves reported that they always trust their mothers compared to

sometimes (65%); neutral (40%), and never (0%). Thus, the more someone trust his mother, the

more he/she will trust himself/herself; the same is also true for self-trust and trusting ones

mother. (see Table 5).




              Table 5: Trusting ones mother by Self Trust in %, N=373

                                                Self trust

                                          Always         Sometimes Neutral     Never


                         Always           84.9           64.8          40.0    0.0

      Trusting           Sometimes        7.0            21.1          40.0    33.3
      mother:

                         Neutral          5.6            9.9           20.0    66.7


                         Never            2.5            4.2           0.0     0.0

                         Total            284            71            15      3

                         χ2 (9) = 51.4, ρ value = 0.001, phi = 0.348




                                                   289
Hypothesis 5: There is a relationship between Self Trust and Trust for ones Father


The findings in Table 6 revealed that trusting ones father does not mean that the individual will

trust (or distrust) him/herself. Thus, there is no statistical relation between self-trust and trusting

ones father - χ2 (9) = 14.77, ρ value =0.098.



               Table 6: Self Trust and Trust for ones Father in %, N=349

                                                                   Trust for ones Father

                                          Always        Sometimes Neutral            Never


                        Always            80.2          66.7          69.1           80.0

      Self trust:       Sometimes         16.9          25.3          21.8           20.0

                        Neutral           2.9           6.9           5.5            0.0


                        Never             0.0           1.1           3.6            0.0

                        Total             172           87            55             35

                       χ2 (9) = 14.77, ρ value =0.098




                                                  290
Hypothesis 6.1: There is a relationship between Interpersonal Trust and Self Trust


The cross-tabulation between interpersonal trust and self trust revealed that the statistical

association is a weak positive one - χ2 (9) = 42.5, ρ value =0.001; single correlation coefficient =

0.311. Hence, the aforementioned issues could be vice versa – that is, self-trust is influenced by

interpersonal trust. Approximately 2% of those who reported ‘always’ to having self-trust

indicated ‘always’ to interpersonal trust compared to 13.3% who indicated sometimes, 13.3%

neutral, with 25% reported never. (see Table 7.1).


               Table 7: Interpersonal Trust and Self Trust in %, N=398


                                              Self trust

                                        Always         Sometimes Neutral          Never


                       Always           1.6            13.3         13.3          25.0

                       Sometimes        74.0           62.7         46.7          0.0

      Interpersonal
      trust:

                       Neutral          17.1           12.0         20.0          25.0


                       Never            7.2            12.0         20.0          50.0

                       Total            304            75           15            4

                       χ2 (9) = 42.5, ρ value =0.001




                                                 291
Hypothesis 6.2:     There is a statistical relation between Interpersonal Trust and Sex of
respondents
Majority of the respondents reported that they generally trusted people ‘some of the times’

(70.2%), with 4.5% indicated they trusted people at all times compared to 16.3% who are

neutral. When generalized trust is controlled for sex of respondents, we found that 10% more

males reported that they ‘never’ trusted other people – female’s distrust in other people was

8.5%. Although the there is a difference between the views expressed by males and that of

females, there is no statistical difference between the view of each sex - χ2 (3) = 3.595, ρ value

=0.309.


          Table 7.2: Interpersonal Trust and Sex of respondents, in %, N=395


                                            Sex of Respondents

                                                     Male         Female


                                   Always              5.8         2.6

                                   Sometimes           66.9        74.5

                  Interpersonal
                  trust:

                                   Neutral             17.8        14.4


                                   Never               9.5         8.5

                                   Total               242         153

                      χ2 (3) = 3.595, ρ value =0.309




                                               292
Deconstructing Trust in the police officers

Approximately 20% of the sampled respondents indicated that they always trust a colleague

while on duty, with 59% reporting sometimes compared to 2% who indicated that they always

trust people in the officer corp and 1% in rank and file members. Furthermore, some 20% of the

total respondents revealed that they never trust members in the officer ranks compared to 10% of

those in rank and file, with 3% of respondents reporting that they never trust colleagues while on

operation. (see Figure 1)



   70



   60



   50



   40
                                                                                Rank
                                                                                Officer
   30
                                                                                Comfortable

   20



   10



     0
             Always         Sometimes         Neutral       Never



Figure 1: Trust in Rank and file officers, officer corp members and police officer on patrol




                                                 293
Proportion of Income spent on Food, Mortgage and/or rent

When the population was asked ‘In a typical month how much of what you make (i.e. income) is

spent on food?’ approximately 57% indicated that they spent at least one-half of their salary on

food compared to 30% who expend some 50% of income for mortgage or rent. Only 3% of the

respondents revealed that they spent nothing on food compared to 20% who indicated that they

spent nothing on mortgage or rent. (see Figure 2).



   60



   50



   40

                                                                   Income spent on food

   30
                                                                   Income spent on rent or
                                                                   mortgage

   20



   10



    0
         Almost all    Three      One half   One quarter    None
                      quarters


Figure 2: Proportion of income spent on food or mortgage (accommodations)




                                              294
Hypothesis 7: Interpersonal trust is influenced by proportion of income spent on food

There is a weak positive relation between interpersonal trust and the proportion of income spent

on food - χ2 (12) = 33.04, ρ value =0.001, with a single correlation coefficient being 0.277.

Some 84% of population indicated that they spend ‘almost all’ of their income on food who

reported ‘sometimes’ for the trusting of people. (see Figure 3).


  90


  80


  70


  60


  50                                                                              Always
                                                                                  Sometimes
  40                                                                              Neutral
                                                                                  Never
  30


  20


  10


   0
           Almost all      Three quarters       One half           One quarter

Figure 3: Interpersonal Trust by Proportion of Income spent on Food




                                                295
Desire to Leave the JCF by Sex of Respondents


When the sampled population was asked ‘Would you change your job as a police officer because

of the lack of trust (or low confidence) with the JCF?”, 95.5% of the population responded

(N=382). Of those who responded, 32.7% reported yes compared to 67.3% who indicated no.

Further inquiry of ‘would you change your job as a police officer because of the lack of trust’

controlled for sex revealed that there is no statistical difference between the view of females

compared to those of their male counterparts - χ2 (1) = 0.015, ρ value =0.903. Thus, there is no

statistical difference between the 32.5% of males who indicated yes compared to 33.1% of the

females who reported the same or between the 67.5% of males who reported no compared to

66.9% of female who indicated no.




                 80
                 70
                 60
                 50
    Percentage




                 40
                 30
                 20
                 10
                 0
                          Male                         Female
                 Yes      32.5                          33.1
                 No       67.5                          66.9

Figure 4: The probability of leaving the JCF by sex of respondents




                                              296
Hypothesis 8: There is an association between interpersonal Trust and Morale in the JCF


       An examination between interpersonal trust and morale revealed that there is a statistical

relation between the two variables - χ2 (12) = 43.275, ρ value =0.001, with a single correlation

coefficient = 0.314. Thus, the statistical association is a weak positive one. This means that

when morale increases, interpersonal also increase. Further investigation revealed that 50% of

those who indicated a very high morale reported always to interpersonal trust compared to 0% of

those who indicated high morale, 6.2% who said moderate to morale, 4.5% with low morale and

0% with very low morale. (See Figure 5). Hence, low in the JCF is affecting member trust in

other people – this interpersonal distrust extends beyond the force to the wider public.




          90

          80

          70

          60

          50                                                                          Always
                                                                                      Sometimes
          40
                                                                                      Neutral
          30                                                                          Never

          20

          10

           0
                Very high      High      Moderate       Low        Very low


          Figure 5: Interpersonal Trust by Morale in the JCF




                                                297
Hypothesis 9: There is a statistical relation between Morale in the JCF and Educational Level.

Given that morale in the JCF is low (i.e. 5 out of 10 people have a low morale), on wanting to

ascertain what are the causes we cross-tabulated morale with educational level. The inquiry

revealed that educational level influences morale in the JCF - χ2 (8) = 20.76, ρ value = 0.008 <

0.05. However, the association is a weak one – single correlation coefficient = 0.224. Based on

table 8, we found that people with University education had the lowest level of morale in the JCF

(76.9%; that is 8 out of 10 individual with an University education had a low to a very low

morale), compared to 46% with a college education, 47.8% with secondary education, 52.1%

with post-secondary and 54.5% with primary level education. This means that with the average

morale being low (52%), it is 25% more for those with University qualification. But people with

college and secondary level education reported a higher morale compared to average morale in

the JCF.

Table 8: Morale in the JCT by Individual Educational Level in %, N=394

                                 Individual Educational Level

                                   Primary      Secondary     Post Sec.      College   University

     Morale:

                High to            18.3         8.9           2.8            6.3       3.8
                V high

                Moderate           27.3         43.3          45.1           47.5      19.2


                V low to
                Low                54.5         47.8          52.1           46.3      76.9


                Total              11           180           71             80        52

                        χ2 (8) = 20.76, ρ value = 0.008 < 0.05, cc = 0.224


                                                298
       Any examination of quality of life cannot only include morale, education negative

psychological conditions of the people to which we study, but this needs to incorporate class

structure – social class. Thus, a using One-Way ANOVA, it was revealed that a statistical

relation exists between quality of life of JCF members and subjective social class - F statistic

[2,378] = 6.006, p value = 0.003. The mean quality of life of difference subjective social classes

was 34.7± 7.6. Deconstructing the general average revealed that respondents who indicated that

they are within the lower class had the least quality of life (33.1 ± 7.7) and that this is lower than

the overall mean. However, the quality of life of those in the middle class is 35.7 ± 7.2 which is

lower than that for those in the upper class 36.9 ± 8.1. It should be noted here that 42% of police

officers classify themselves as being in the lower class, with only 3.4% in the upper class

compared to 54.6% in the upper class.




                                                 299
Hypothesis 10: There is an association between morale and sex of respondents



On investigating whether a relationship exists between morale in the JCF and sex of respondents,

we found that there is no statistical difference between the views of males compared to those of

their female counterparts - χ2 (2) = 2.25, ρ value =0.325. Thus, with 8% of male reported a high

to a very high morale compared to female who revealed 5%, there is no statistical difference

between the two figures. Neither is there a difference between the male’s reporting 51% low to

very low morale compared with 56% for females.




                    Table 8: Morale by Sex of respondents, N=394

                                                      Male       Female

                                    High to
                                    Very high         8.2        4.6

                   Morale:

                                    Moderate          41.2       39.7


                                    Low to            50.6       55.6
                                    Very low

                                    Total             243        151

                      χ2 (2) = 2.25, ρ value =0.325




                                               300
Hypothesis 11: There is an association between morale and satisfaction with current salary



A cross-tabulation between morale in the JCF and satisfaction with current salary, we found that

there is a statistical association between the views of those who are satisfied or not satisfied with

their current salaries and morale - χ2 (4) = 19.211, ρ value =0.001. The statistical association is a

weak positive one – single correlation coefficient being 0.219. Based on table 9, we found that

56% of those who were dissatisfied with their current salaries reported a low morale compared to

37% who were uncertain and 3% who were satisfied. Thus, salary is one of the factors that is

affecting the current low morale in the JCF.




                         Table 9: Morale by Satisfaction, N=380

                                                Satisfied    Not sure      Dissatisfied

                              High to
                              Very high         6.3          21.1          6.1


             Morale:

                              Moderate          68.8         42.1          37.7


                              Low to
                              Very low          2.5          36.8          56.2



                              Total             32           151

                       χ2 (4) = 19.211, ρ value =0.001



                                                301
Hypothesis 12: People with a higher morale has a greater quality of life



We found that there is a positive association between morale and quality of life of JCF members

– using ANOVA F statistic [2,392] = 10.3, p value = 0.001. Based on table 10, respondents with

the least quality of life are those who reported a low morale (32.6 out of 50 ± 7.9), with the

highest quality of life being reported by those with the greatest morale (37.5 out of 50 ± 6.7)

compared to 35.8 out of 50 ± 7.4 for those who had a moderate morale. With the low degree of

morale in the JCF, the quality of life of its members is affected by the low morale. It should be

noted here that quality of life for those who indicated a low morale is lower than the general

mean quality of life for JCF members, while it is higher for those who reported a moderate

morale and even greater for those who indicated that their moral was high. (see Table 10).


Table 10: Quality of Life by Morale of JCF members, N=395


                                               N            Mean           Standard
                                                                           deviation
                             High to
                             Very high         27           37.5           6.7


             Quality of
             life:

                             Moderate          162          35.8           7.4


                             Low to
                             Very low          206          32.6           7.9



                             Total             395          34.2           7.8

                      F statistic [2,392] = 10.3, p value = 0.001


                                               302
Hypothesis 13: Negative psychologic status by Morale



The average negative psychologic condition of JCF member is moderate (22 out of 46 ± 9.3).

When the negative psychologic condition of JCF members was deconstructed by morale, we

found that there is no statistical relation between the two aforementioned variables - F statistic

[2,391] = 2.7, p value = 0.068. This is interpreted as morale within the JCF is not explained by

the negative psychologic condition of its member, nor vice versa.




Table 10: Negative Psychologic Conditions by Morale of JCF members, N=394


                                               N             Mean        Standard
                                                                         deviation
                              High to
                              Very high        27            22.2        9.3


             Negative
             Psychologic
             condition:

                              Moderate         162           21.3        9.9


                              Low to
                              Very low         205           23.5        8.8



                              Total            395           22.5        9.3

                      F statistic [2,391] = 2.7, p value = 0.068




                                               303
Hypothesis 14: There is a statistical relation between trusting Rank and file Police officers by
sex of respondents, and Officer Corp and sex of respondents.



A general examination of trust of rank and file member compared to those in the officer corp

revealed some interesting results as the degree of trust is greater for rank and file officers than

for those in the officer corp as 21% of the sample reported that they distrusted the officer corp

compared to 10% who reported that they distrust rank and file police officers. Figure 6 is a

cross-tabulation between the different types of trust in group by sex of the sample population.

We found that females distrust is greater than that of their male counterparts, with distrust in

rank and file officer being one-half of that in the officer corp. Males’ distrust in rank and file

police officer is approximately 10%, with distrust in those in the officer corp being 20%.

However, females’ distrust in those in rank and file was 10%, as distrust in the office corp being

21%.



                            Never
  Category to trust




                           Neutral
                      Sometimes
                           Always

                                     0     10     20            30        40             50   60        70

                                         Always        Sometimes               Neutral        Never
               Officer Corp Female        0.7            45.5                   32.9               21
               Officer Corp Male          2.2            47.6                   29.6           20.3
               Rank Female                 0              64                     26                10
               Rank Male                  1.3            60.8                   28.3           9.7

                                                                 Percentage


Figure 6: Trust in Rank and file, and Officer corp by Sex of respondents



                                                         304
Hypothesis 15: There is an association between trust of rank and file officer and morale



A cross-tabulation between morale and trust in rank and file officers revealed that trust (or

distrust) in rank and file officers is not influencing the morale in the JCF- χ2 (4) = 9.46, ρ value =

0.051. Thus, there is no statistical difference between those reported sometimes to always,

neutral and never trust rank and file officers to the degree of morale in the JCF.




               Table 11: Morale and Trust in rank and file officers, N=388

                               Trust in rank and file
                               officer

                                                Sometimes Neutral           Never
                                                To always


                               High to          4.9           9.4           10.5
                               Very high


             Morale:

                               Moderate         38.5          49.1          31.6


                               Low to
                               Very low         56.6          41.5          57.9



                               Total            244           106           38

                       χ2 (4) = 9.46, ρ value =0.051




                                                 305
Hypothesis 16: There is an association between trust of those in the officer corp and morale



Further examination of morale and trust of those in the office ranks in the JCF revealed that

distrust of those in the office ranks is positively related to state of morale - χ2 (4) = 9.95, ρ value

=0.041, with a single correlation coefficient being 0.161. Table 12 highlighted that 64% of those

who indicated that they never trust (distrust) members within the officer corp said that their

morale is very low compared to 47% of those in indicated that they trust – sometimes or always

– with 52% of those who reported that they are neutral.


               Table 12: Morale by Trust in those in the officer corp, N=375

                               Trust of those in the officer
                               corp

                                                 Sometimes Neutral           Never
                                                 To always


                               High to           6.0           6.9           10.4
                               Very high


             Morale:

                               Moderate          46.7          41.4          26.0


                               Low to
                               Very low          47.3          51.7          63.6



                               Total             182           116           77

                       χ2 (4) = 9.95, ρ value =0.041




                                                 306
Hypothesis 17: Subjective Social Class influences Morale in the JCF



Subjective social class does not influence morale in the JCF - χ2 (4) = 6.18, ρ value =0.186.

Thus, irrespective of police’s self-reported social class, the general views on morale remains the

same.




                  Table 12: Morale by Subjective Social Class, N=381

                              Subjective Social Class

                                               Lower        Middle       Upper


                              High to          6.3          6.7          15.4
                              Very high


             Morale:

                              Moderate         37.5         42.8         61.7


                              Low to
                              Very low         56.3         50.5         23.1



                              Total            150          280          13

                       χ2 (4) = 6.18, ρ value =0.186




                                               307
Police Officers Trusting of particular Internal Groups



Police officers trust the Jamaican Police Federation the most (53%) compared to 27% in the

Police Officer Association, and 21% in the current hierarchy of the force.




                                 High
  Trust in Internal Groups




                             Moderate




                                  Low




                                           0   10     20           30       40   50     60

                                               Low               Moderate        High
                     Police Office Asscn       28.2                44.4          27.4
                     Police Federation         16.5                30.6          52.9
                    Hierarchy                  39.6                39.4          21

                                                             Percentage


Figure 7: Trusting of particular groups within the JCF




                                                           308
Hypotheses 18, 19, and 20:



Hypothesis 18: There is a statistical relation between trust current hierarchy and morale in the
JCF

There is a positive statistical relation between trusting the current hierarchy in the JCF and

morale – p value = 0.001. The association between the two variable was a weak one, Spearman

rho = 0.232. Thus, trust (or distrust) in the current hierarchy of the JCF explains the state of

morale in the force. (see Table 13).


Hypothesis 19: There is an association between trusting members in the Police Federation and
morale in the JCF

We found that there is a direct statistical association between trusting members within the Police

Federation - JCF - and morale – p value = 0.039. The association between the two variable was

a weak one, Spearman rho = 0.104. Thus, trust (or distrust) of members within the Police

Federation of the JCF explains a part of the state of morale in the force. (see Table 13).




Hypothesis 20: There is a direct association between trusting members of Police Officers’
Association and Morale in the JCF

Using Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient, we found that a direct statistical relation exists

between trusting member of the Police Officers’ Association and morale in the JCF and morale –

p value = 0.001. The association between the two variable was a weak one, Spearman rho =

0.175. Thus, when trust (or distrust) of members within the Police Officers’ Association - of the

JCF - morale is high and vice versa. (see Table 13).




                                                309
Table 13: Bivariate relation between morale and hierarchy, police federation or police office
asscn.
                                                                                    Trust
                                                           Trust       Trust        Police
                                            Morale        Current      Police     Officer’s
                                                        Hierarchy    Federation     Asscn
 Morale              Correlation
                                                1.000
                     Coefficient
                     Sig. (2-tailed)                 .
                     N                            398
 Hierarchy           Correlation
                                            .232(**)          1.000
                     Coefficient
                     Sig. (2-tailed)             .000              .
                     N                            389           391
 Police              Correlation
                                              .104(*)      .344(**)        1.000
 Federation          Coefficient
                     Sig. (2-tailed)             .039          .000             .        .000
                     N                            393           389          395          393
 Police              Correlation
 Officer’s           Coefficient            .175(**)       .444(**)     .487(**)        1.000
 Asscn
                     Sig. (2-tailed)             .000          .000         .000              .
                     N                            392           389          393          394
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).




                                               310
Examining Low Morale in the JCF by Area of Work




The researcher classified the different typologies of work into five groups; these were operations,

administration, crime, intelligence and other. An examination of morale by area of work revealed

that JCF members who work in intelligence reported the least morale followed by those in

operations; other; crime, and lastly by those in administration. (See Figure 8).




                          Other


                    Intelligence
  Area of Work




                         Crime


                 Administration


                     Operation


                                   0    10          20    30       40             50   60       70

                          Operation    Administration    Crime          Intelligence    Other
           Morale            52.5            45.3         46.7             61.8         51.5

                                                           Percentage


Figure 8: Low Morale in the JCF by Area of Work




                                                         311
Examining Low Morale in the JCF by Area of Work controlled for sex



The level of low morale for females is the lowest for those who are working in administration

(41.4%), with males this being those in operations and administration (50%). We had found that

police officers who are employed in the intelligence units of the force revealed that the lowest

degree of morale, with females experiencing at least 1.3 times lower compared to their male

counterparts (56.9%). This means that 7 out of every 10 females who are employed in the

intelligence unit of the JCF compared to 6 out of 10 of their male colleagues.



                         Other


                    Intelligence
  Area of work




                         Crime


                 Administration
                                                                                                          Morale Female
                     Operation                                                                            Morale Male


                                   0        10       20     30      40        50        60   70      80

                                                 Administrati
                               Operation                          Crime       Intelligence   Other
                                                    on
           Morale Female           58.3             41.4          48.4             75         59.3
           Morale Male                 50            50           44.2             56.7       43.8

                                                                 Percentage


Figure 9: Examining Low Morale in the JCF by Area of Work controlled for sex




                                                                      312
Job performance



Trust (or distrust) influences production, in particular ‘job performance’. When the respondents

were asked ‘Do you think that trust affect job performance’, 98.8% (N=395) of them answered

this question.   Of those who responded, 88% of them said ‘yes’, with 7% indicated ‘no’

compared to 8% who reported ‘not sure’. Of the total sample of male respondents, 88% of them

reported yes compared to 89% females, with there being no statistical difference between the

views of males and that of females – χ2(2)=0.135; p value = 0.935 > 0.05 – that is, the

perception of males is the same as that of females on the issue of trust affecting job performance.


       When the issue of job performance was cross-tabulated with age cohorts of respondents,

the views expressed was that trust (or distrust) influences job performance, and this was the same

across the different age cohorts - χ2 (8) =6.655; p value = 0.547 > 0.05 – as 86% of the youth

(i.e. 18 – 2 yrs.) reported yes compared to 90% of those in the age cohort 26-35 yrs., 86% of the

36 to 45 yr age group, 89% of those in the age group 46 to 55 years and 82% between the age

cohort 56 years and older.




                                               313
An examination of Morale by Current Economic Situation of Respondents


A cross tabulation between morale and current situation of respondents revealed that the two

aforementioned variables are statistical related to each other - χ2 (4) =12.837; p value = 0.012 <

0.05, N=397, with the associated being a very weak negative one as the single correlation

coefficient being 0.177. Further examination of the above relation revealed that 67.3% of those

respondents who indicated that their current economic situation was ‘bad to very bad’ had ‘low

to very low morale’ compared to 49% of those who said their current economic situation was

moderate with only 40% of those who had indicated that they present economic situation was

‘good to very good’. On the other hand, 5% of those who reported that their present economic

situation was ‘bad to very bad’ was had ‘high to very high’ morale, with 7% of those whose

economic situation was moderate compared to 8% of the respondents who indicated that their

current economic situation was ‘good to very good’. Thus, the economic situation of police

officers is one of the many variables that influence morale in the JCF. (See Figure 10).




                                               314
      Bad - Vbad



        Average



     Good-Vgood
                                                                          Very low
                                                                          Moderate
                   0            20          40          60           80
                                                                          High
                       Good-Vgood        Average        Bad - Vbad
        Very low           40              49.4              67.3
        Moderate           52              43.8              27.6
        High               8               6.8               5.1




                                     Percentage




Figure 10: Morale by Current Economic Situation




                                                  315
Trust with Sensitive Information


When the population was asked ‘Would you trust your colleague with sensitive information?’ a

little over one-third indicates high trust for other police with 41% reported a moderate degree of

trust compared to 22% who had a low trust of other colleague with particular information. (see

Figure 11).




          41%
                                                                Low
                                37%                      37%    Moderate
                                                                High


                22%




Figure 11: Trust colleague with sensitive information




                                               316
Trust with Sensitive Information by Sex of Respondents


When trusting colleagues with sensitive information was cross-reference with sex of the

respondents, we found a very weak statistical relation between the two aforementioned variables

– χ2(2) = 10.977; p value = 0.005, with a single correlation coefficient being 0.165. The findings

revealed that less trusting of their colleagues with sensitive information compared to male police

officers. (see Figure 12). Approximately 28% of females reported a low trust of colleagues with

particular information compared to 18% of male officers.
  Trust with Sensitive Information




                                         High




                                     Moderate




                                         Low



                                                0          10   20           30   40     50

                                                    Low         Moderate          High
                          Female                    28.3             44.1         27.6
                          Male                      18.3             38.6         43.2

                                                                 Percentage



Figure 12: Trusting Colleague with Sensitive Information by Sex of Respondents




                                                                            317
Trust with Sensitive Information by Generalized Interpersonal trust


Is there a statistical relation between trusting someone with sensitive information and

interpersonal trust?    We found a weak positive statistical association between the two

aforementioned variables – χ2(6)=14.330, p value = 0.026 – with a single correlation coefficient

of 0.187. From the findings in table 14, 20% of respondents who reported that they ‘never’

trusted other people had a high trust of colleagues with sensitive information, with 30% of those

who indicated neutral, 40% of those who reported sometimes compared to 50% of those who

indicated always to interpersonal trust. Thus, the more people trust other people, the more they

are likely to trust their colleagues with sensitive information and vice versa.


Table 14: Trusting police officers with sensitive information by interpersonal trust, N=394

                                                  Interpersonal Trust

                                        Always         Sometimes Neutral          Never


                       Low              11.1           18.8         29.7          40.0


     Trust with
     information:

                       Moderate         38.9           41.2         40.6          40.0



                       High             50.0           40.1         29.7          20.0



                       Total            18             277          64            35

                       χ2 (6) = 14.330, ρ value =0.026




                                                 318
Trusting police officers with Sensitive Information by trusting other police officers


Among the reasons why police officers are sharing (or not sharing) sensitive information with

other is due to the issue of trusting each other. We found that relation between the two

aforementioned variables is a weak positive one - χ2 (6) = 45.910, ρ value =0.001, with a single

correlation coefficient being 0.323. Thus, 10% of the variance in trusting police officers with

sensitive information can be explained by police officers trusting (or distrusting) each other.

       The general findings revealed that 13% of respondents who reported that they ‘never’

trusted other police officers reported that they trusted police officers with sensitive information;

and when the degree of trust in police officers increase so does the level of trust to share

sensitive information. (See table 15).


Table 15: Trusting police officers with sensitive information by trusting police officers, N=393

                                                   Trusting other police officers

                                         Always         Sometimes Neutral           Never


                      Low                0.0            16.8        30.8            46.2


     Trust with
     information:

                      Moderate           0.0            39.9        48.7            41.0


                      High               100.0          43.3        20.5            12.8



                      Total              8              268         78              39

                       χ2 (6) = 45.910, ρ value =0.001



                                                  319
On disaggregating Trusting police officers with Sensitive Information by trusting other police

officers revealed some interesting results. We deconstructed police officers into rank and file

(i.e. from constables to inspectors) and office corp (i.e. Assistant Superintendents to

Commissioners) in an effort to understanding which of the two groups of officers account a

lower or greater explanation of the why police officers trust (or distrust) their colleagues with

sensitive information. The findings show that trust (or distrust) in rank and file police officer is

more of an explanation of police sharing sensitive information with other colleagues compared to

trust (or distrust) in those within the officer corp 22 (see Figure 13).
     Trust with Sensitive Information




                                         Officer corp




                                        Rank and file




                                                        0     20            40         60       80          100   120

                                                            Rank and file                        Officer corp
                              Never                             10.8                                 22.4
                             Neutral                            24.5                                 33.6
                             Sometimes                          45.8                                 46.6
                             Always                             100                                  66.7

                                                                                   Percentage


Figure 13: Trusting police officers with sensitive information (at the highest level) by types of
ranks
22
  Correlation description for rank and file officers - χ2 (6) = 35.277, ρ value =0.001, single correlation coefficient
being 0.278; and correlation description for officer corp - χ2 (6) = 23.13, ρ value =0.001, single correlation
coefficient being 0.241.



                                                                                 320
                                     With respect of being fearful of reporting an act of misconduct against colleagues, 25%

of the respondents revealed that they are highly fearful, with 42% indicated on average whereas

31% of respondents mentioned that they were highly fearful of reporting an act of corruption

against a colleague, with 37% indicated on average. Furthermore, we found that there is a

statistical relation between trusting other police officers with sensitive information (only

category used here is highest level) by fear of reporting an act of corruption – χ2 (8) = 38.924, ρ

value =0.001, with the single correlation coefficient being 0.301 as well as fear of reporting an

act of misconduct – χ2 (8) = 30.222, ρ value =0.001, with a single correlation coefficient being

0.268. Thus fear of reprisal from corrupt or misconduct police officers is one of the reasons why

police officers do not trust their colleagues with sensitive information.
  Trust with Sensitive Information




                                     Act of corruption




                                          Misconduct




                                                         0        10      20            30          40           50   60

                                                             Misconduct                           Act of corruption
                          Very low                              37.5                                     35.9
                          Low                                   51.7                                     53
                          Average                               34.6                                     34.9
                          High                                  41.2                                     39
                          Very high                             14.3                                     20.3

                                                                                     Percentage




                                                                               321
Figure 14: Trusting police officers with sensitive information (at the highest level) by fear of
reporting misconduct against other officers, and fear of reporting an act of corruption against
other officers.




                                              322
       Investigating Police Fearing their colleagues (in the JCF)


       Among the tenets of distrust (or low confidence) is fear of others. So in attempting to

examine this in the JCF we asked “Would you attend court and give evidence against any of your

colleague without fear of being hurt?” and 40% of respondents indicated yes, 28% reported no

with 32% mentioned that they were unsure. The 32% who indicated being unsure is a clear state

of reservation, suspicion, cynicism, duty, brotherhood and reflection on the path of the

respondents as an indicator of police officers’ psychological status of not wanting to destroy the

life of another officer, within the context that they may require some assistance in the future – it

is a reflection internal benefit within the difficult and vulnerability of the job, which is a state of

empathy. And so this speaks to an understanding of the situation as against fear. It does

highlight some aspect of fear, and not a situation of being corruption or inadequacy of the

training mechanism or structure of the force.


       This begs another question does ‘fear’ of colleagues impact on the morale in the JCF.

Hence, we cross-tabulated the aforementioned question with morale in the force, and it was

revealed that there is no statistical relation between the two variables. The interpretation here is

simple as it means that the low morale within the JCF is not caused by mere apprehension or

being fearful in speaking the truth in court on a colleague – single correlation coefficient being

χ2(2)=3.2, p value =0.5> 0.05.


       The issue of apprehension between and among police was measured using particular

research questions. Firstly, “Are you comfortable going on patrol with a colleague?’ and the

responses to this Likert ‘Scale question were always, sometimes, neutral and never.

Approximately 50% of the total reported sometimes, with only 20% indicated ‘always’


                                                 323
compared to 3% who reported never and 18% mentioned that they were neutral. Secondly,

“would you trust your colleague with sensitive information?”, with 22% reported a low response

to this question. The low response can be interpreted as apprehension and distrust, with some

40% indicated a moderate choice in the aforementioned question.


       Examining Trustworthiness of the Jamaica Constabulary Force


       Trust is fostered in a milieu where people or institutions are trustworthy. Hence, trust is

an attitude to trustworthiness, in which the latter is a property and not an attitude. Within this

context in a discussion of trust, we need to enquire about the trustworthiness of the JCF as a

possible explanation of the quality of trust of its members. Thus, we asked the question, ‘Do you

believe that the organization (i.e. Jamaica Constabulary Force) is a trustworthy on?’ Of the total

population (N=400 respondents), only 21% of them reported yes compared to 38% who

indicated no and 41% said maybe. This solicits the question ‘does trustworthiness affects trust?’

And is the association between generalized trust or trust in members within the force?’




                                               324
       Thus, we cross tabulated generalized trust and trustworthiness of the JCF and found that

there is no statistical association between the two aforementioned variables – single correlation

being χ2 (6) = 3.150, p value = 0.743 > 0.05. Approximately 6% of those who reported yes to

trusting other persons revealed that they do not believe that the JCF is not (i.e. never) trustworthy

compared to 11% of the sample who indicated no to interpersonal trust and 9% who responded

maybe. Based on the single correlation, there is no statistical different between the views of

person who answered yes, no or maybe. (see Figure 15).




                                        Never
          Trustworthiness




                                       Neutral



                                   Sometimes

                                                                                                          Interpersonal trust Maybe

                                       Always                                                             Interpersonal trust No
                                                                                                          Interpersonal trust Yes

                                                 0            20           40           60           80

                                                               Sometime
                                                     Always                     Neutral      Never
                                                                  s
                     Interpersonal trust Maybe        5.5           66.9         18.4         9.2
                     Interpersonal trust No           3.4           71.8         14.1        10.7
                      Interpersonal trust Yes         3.7           73.2         17.1         6.1

                                                                     Percentage

       Figure 15: Interpersonal Trust by Trustworthiness




                                                                   325
       We have found that no relation exists between generalized trust and trustworthiness in the

JCF. But, is there a statistical association between trusting members and the trustworthiness of

organization (i.e. Jamaica Constabulary Force)? Thus, a cross tabulation between trusting

members of the JCF and trustworthiness of the JCF (i.e. the organization) revealed that a

statistical relation exists between the two aforementioned variables - single correlation is χ2 (6) =

41.946, p value = 0.001< 0.05. Of the total population (N=400), 98.3% of them were used for

the cross tabulation. The relationship is a weak statistical one – contingency coefficient equals

0.311. Further examination of the general statistical relation revealed that 19% of respondents

who indicated that they do not trust police officers, do not find the JCF as being trustworthy

compared to 3% who indicated yes, and 6% who reported maybe. Thus, 6.3 times more

respondents who indicated that they do not trust other police officers than those who reported yes

indicated that the JCF is not – further than not, they responded never – a trustworthy institution.

(See Figure 16, below). It follows that the degree of trust of police officers for their colleagues

(or distrust) is influenced by the trustworthiness in the organization. Using this argument, Figure

16, highlights this fact as 7% of respondents who reported that they trust other police officers

compared to 1% who indicated no or maybe found the JCF to be trustworthy. Embedded in this

finding is how distrust for people in an entity is fostered (or enhanced) by the distrust for the

organization or vice versa. This means that those that we trust must be trustworthy. Thus, trust

begets trustworthiness, and trustworthiness builds trust.




                                                326
                                                     Never

          Trustworthiness of JCF
                                                    Neutral



                                                Sometimes

                                                                                                Trusting other police officers
                                                                                                Maybe
                                                    Always
                                                                                                Trusting other police officers No

                                                               0    20    40    60     80 100   Trusting other police officers
                                                                                                Yes
                                                               Alway Some Neutr
                                                                                Never
                                                                 s   times al
                            Trusting other police officers
                                                                   0.6   69.9   23.3     6.1
                                       Maybe
                           Trusting other police officers No       0.7   58.4   22.1    18.8
                            Trusting other police officers
                                                                   7.4   80.2    9.9     2.5
                                        Yes

                                                                         Percentage

        Figure 16: Trusting other police officers by Trustworthiness of JCF


       What explains the trustworthiness in an organization?

       In attempting to answer this question, we examine a cross tabulation between trust in the

hierarchy of the JCF and the trustworthiness. This examination revealed a statistical relation

between the two aforementioned variables – χ2 (4) = 37.8, p value = 0.001 < 0.05. The statistical

relation is a weak positive one – single correlation is 0.298. Exploring this association revealed

that 12% of respondents (n=17) reported that the JCF is not a trustworthy institution compared to

18% who indicated maybe and 42% who mentioned yes reported a high trust in the current

hierarchy. (see Figure 17).




                                                                         327
                                      No
  Trustworthiness of Organization




                                    Maybe



                                                                                                     High
                                                                                                     Moderate
                                                                                                     Low
                                      Yes




                                            0     10     20          30           40     50     60

                                                       Trustworthiness of Organization
                                                Yes                Maybe                 No
                             High               42                  18.2                 11.5
                              Moderate          35.8                 44                  36.5
                             Low                22.2                37.7                 52

Figure 17: Hierarchical Trust by Trustworthiness of Organization




                                                                    328
Trustworthiness of the Organization by would you change your job due to lack of trust within the
force.


       In the pursuit of examining trustworthiness of an entity, we evaluated this variable with

the desire to change ones job from that of policing because of low trust. And found a weak

statistical association between the two previously mentioned variables – χ2 (2) =24.3, p value

0.001 < 0.05, with a single correlation being 0.246 N=378.                                      It was revealed that 9% of

respondents who answered yes to wanting to change their jobs as police officer – owing to the

lack of trust – compared to 27% who said no reported that the organization (Jamaica

Constabulary Force – JCF) is a trustworthy one. (See Figure 18).




                                                           No
          Trustworthiness of Organization




                                                      Maybe




                                                           Yes



                                                                 0   10       20      30          40      50     60

                                                                     Yes             Maybe                 No
                              Would you change your job as police
                                 because of lack of trust No         26.7             30.2                43.1

                              Would you change your job as police
                                 because of lack of trust Yes        8.9              52.8                38.2


                                                                                   Percentage




                                                                        329
          Figure 18: Trustworthiness of organization by would you change your job as a police

officer              because             of             lack             of             trust.




                                              330
       Trustworthiness of JCF by particular Demographic Variables


       We have been examining trustworthiness of the JCF, but in all of this we have not

explore who the people are. Hence, the first question we ask here is - what is the age group of

those who answered the question on the trustworthiness of the JCF.                                          The cross tabulation

between trustworthiness of the JCF and age group revealed that a statistical association exists

between the two variables – χ2 (2) = 8.518, p value = 0.014. However, the relation is weak one –

single correlation is 0.146. Figure 19 provides some information on the association between the

two phenomena. It shows that 16% of respondents who are 36 years and over compared to 28%

of those 35 years and below reported that the JCF is trustworthy. An important observation here

is approximately 2 times (i.e. 1.755) the number of younger respondents reported that the entity

is trustworthy compared to their older colleagues.




                                              Maybe
          Trustworthiness of Organization




                                                   No




                                                   Yes



                                                           0   5          10     15   20          25   30   35      40   45

                                                                   Yes                     No                    Maybe
                             Age group More than 35 yrs            15.9                    41.6                  42.5
                              Age group Less than 36 yrs           27.9                    33.3                  38.8

                                                                                      Percentage

       Figure 19: Trustworthiness of organization by Age group of respondents.


                                                                               331
          A question emerged from ‘Trustworthiness of JCF by Age group’, ‘Does the longer one

stays employed in the JCF as a police officer means that he/she believes that the institution is

less trustworthy?’. Using ANOVA, we found that a statistical relation between length of service

in the JCF as a police officer and the trustworthiness of the organization – F statistic [2, 378] =

12.2, p value = 0.001 < 0.05. The average length of service of member of the sample was 11

years and 5 months ± 9 years and 2 months. The mean number of years for those who reported

that the organization is a trustworthy one was 15 years and 10 months compared to it being 9

years and 8 months for those who indicated that it is not trustworthy, with 10 years and 10

months being indicated for those who are that the organization ‘maybe’ a trustworthy one.

Embedded in this finding is the reality that the longer one is employed in the JCF as a police

officer is the more he/she believed that the entity is trustworthy. This answers many question,

but one emerges automatically and it is ‘what is the morale for those who spend a long or a short

time in the force?’


          What is the answer to the question of morale and length of service as a police officer

while employed to the JCF? We found that there is no statistical relation existing between

morale in the JCF and length of service – using ANOVA, statistic [4,379] = 2.158, p value =

0.073 > 0.05. This was evident in the values that emerged from the One-Way ANOVA. What

was embedded in the ANOVA analysis is the fact that on an average someone with the greatest

morale had spent mean of 8 years ± 7.6 years in the JCF compared to someone who had the least

morale with 8.8 years ± 7.1 years of services; whereas those who had high, moderate and low

morale had spent on average 12 years in the force. This takes the study in another direct and that

is ‘does satisfaction with current salary influences the perception of the trustworthiness of the

force?’


                                               332
Does satisfaction with current salary influences the perception of the trustworthiness of the

force? In the furnished an answer to this question, we did a cross tabulation between

trustworthiness in the JCF and satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with current salary. The analysis

between the two variable revealed that a relation exists between the variables – χ2 (4) = 15.3, p

value 0.004 < 0.05. There is a weak positive statistical association between the two

aforementioned factors - single correlation is 0.198. Some 2.5 times more respondents who

reported that they are satisfied with their current salary (46.9%) compared to 19.0% of those who

are dissatisfied indicated that they believed that the JCF is a trustworthy institution, compared to

21% of those who reported that they were unsure about the satisfaction of their current salary.

(see Figure 20). Nevertheless satisfaction with current salary is a weak explanation of

respondents’ perception of the trustworthiness of the organization.




                                                      Maybe
  Trustworthiness of Organization




                                                           No




                                                           Yes



                                                                  0        10            20          30        40       50      60

                                                                           Yes                       No                Maybe
                    Satisfaction with Current Salary Dissatisfied          19.2                      39.1               41.9
                    Satisfaction with Current Salary Unsure                21.1                      26.3               52.6
                     Satisfaction with Current Salary Satisfied            46.9                      31.3               21.9

                                                                                                 Percentage

Figure                              20:   Trustworthiness             of   JCF      by        Satisfaction    with   Current   Salary

                                                                                  333
Evaluating Trust in the Current Hierarchy of the JCF


Is there is statistical association between trusting in the hierarchy and morale in the force – χ2(4)

= 21.62, p value 0.001 < 0.05. There is a weak positive statistical relation between the two

aforementioned variables and vice versa – single correlation being 0.229. Comparatively 36% of

those respondents who reported that they have a high trust in the hierarchy had a high morale

compared to 47% of those with a moderate trust in the hierarchy, with 66% of those with a low

trust in the hierarchy. Embodied in this finding is the fact that 5% of those who indicated a low

trust in hierarchical institutions in the JCF compared to 8% of those who reported a moderate

trust with 10% being a high trust in the hierarchy with the JCF had a low morale (see Figure 21).




                           High




                                                                  Trusting in Hierarchy Low
              Morale




                       Moderate
                                                                  Trusting in Hierarchy
                                                                  Moderate
                                                                  Trusting in Hierarchy High



                           Low




                                  0   20      40        60   80
                                           Percentage

       Figure 21: Trusting in current Hierarchy by Morale in the JCF


                                                    334
Majority of those with tertiary level education (41%, N=54) reported that they do not trust the

hierarchy of the current force compared to 43% of those with post-secondary level education,

38% of secondary education, with 30% of those who said that they had primary level education.

The findings revealed that there is no statistical difference between the views of those with

different educational level – bivariate statistical association χ2(6) = 2.97, p value > 0.05. (see

Figure 22).




                                          High
              Trusting in Hierarchy




                                                                                 Education Tertiary
                                      Moderate
                                                                                 Education Post Secondary
                                                                                 Education Secondary
                                                                                 Education Primary



                                          Low




                                                 0   10    20   30     40   50
                                                          Percentage




               Figure 22: Trusting in the Hierarchy by Educational level




                                                                     335
A simple majority of females (43%, N=65) reported that they had a low trust in the current

hierarchy of the JCF compared to 38% of their male counterparts (see Figure 23). Embodied in

this finding is the fact that female are more distrusting in the current hierarchy than males. A

cross tabulation between the two phenomena (i.e. trusting in hierarchy of the JCF and

educational level) revealed that there is no statistical difference the views of the sex with regards

to trusting in the hierarchy – χ2(2) 1.4, p value > 0.05. This means that whether a respondent

indicated that he/she was male or otherwise, his/her perception is that morale is low and there is

no statistical difference between the views of females versus that of males.



   H
   i
              High
   e
   r
   a
   r
   c   Moderate
   h
   y
                                                                      Male
   T                                                                  Female
   r          Low
   u
   s
   t
                     0         10    20        30         40     50

                         Low        Moderate              High
    Male             37.7             40.2                21.9
     Female          43.3             38                  18.7

Figure 24: Hierarchical Trust and Sex of respondents




                                                    336
An important demographic variable with which we believe is of utmost significance to any study

of the current hierarchical trust is subjective social class. Thus, we performed a cross tabulation

between trusting in the current hierarchy of the JCF and subjective social class. We found that a

weak negative statistical association exists between the two aforementioned variables – single

correlation being 0.20: χ2(4) 15.6, p value = 0.004 < 0.05. Deconstructing the general statistical

relation revealed that those who had indicated that they are a part of the lower class were 1.5

times more likely than those who are in the middle class to report a low hierarchical trust

compared to lower class respondents being 6.4 times more likely than those who classified

themselves as being in upper class who indicated a low trust in the current hierarchical structure

of the force.




   Upper




  Middle                                                         High
                                                                 Moderate
                                                                 Low



   Lower




           0          20          40          60           80
                              Percentage




Figure 25: Hierarchical Trust by Subjective Social Class

                                               337
Multivariate Analysis: Quality of Life

        An attempting to understand trust (or distrust) in the JCF, we are cognizant that such a

study must include an examination of quality of the individual within the social context of trust

(or distrust). Our analysis so far has been simple – simple bivariate and univariate analysis – but

the in order to comprehend phenomenon we need to examine the issue from a multidimensional

space as a plethora of variables are simultaneously influencing quality of life. This study,

however, does not seek to identify all the factors that impact on quality of life, in particular the

role of trust – interpersonal or organization trust (distrust) – but the primary purpose for this

section of the paper is to explore more importantly the role of two aforementioned variables on

quality of life in addition to some predisposed factors. Thus, we will examine equation 1 to

ascertain the particular variables that influence quality of life of members within the JCF with

particular emphasis on trust, negative psychological conditions and length of service.                       On

completion of the investigation, we will build a model that only use the statistical significant

variables to express the factors that influence quality of life of police officers in Jamaica.


         QoL =ƒ (Ti, To,Y, E, X,M, N)………………………….……...…………….…Eqn.
[1.1]

        where QoL is quality of life; T i is generalized interpersonal trust 23,; To is institutional
        trust; Y is years of service; E is individual educational attainment; X is sex of
        respondents; M is morale; N is negative affective psychological condition.


        Of the variables identified in equation [1], five of the seven are statistically significant

(i.e. p value < 0.05), and so the final model is a displayed of only those variables that have a p

value less than 0.05 – see eqn. [1.2]

           QoL =ƒ (Ti, To,Y, E, M)………………………….………...…………….…Eqn. [1.2]

23
  The interpersonal trust that is used for this model is a dummy variable, where 1 is trusting (always and
sometimes) and 0 being otherwise – this constitutes neutral and never.

                                                        338
        Equation [1.2] is a parsimonious one, and that the p value that is used as the standard is

0.05. (See Table 16). Furthermore, the model (eqn. [1.2]) is a good fit for the data – F statistic

[7,364] =8.224, p value = 0.001- and it has a explained variation of adjusted R2=0.120. As such,

interpersonal trust, organizational trust, years of service in the force, education and morale are all

factors of quality of life. We found a positive association between morale and quality of life, as

well as between years of service and quality of life, and between organization trust and quality of

life. On the other hand, an inverse relation exists between interpersonal trust – this is measured

as always trust others with reference to never - and quality of life. With regard to educational

level, a there is a positive relation between the aforementioned variable and quality of life.

Education is dummy variable where 1 represents tertiary level education with reference to

primary and below education attainment. Embedded in this finding is that JCF members with

primary level education had a greater quality of life compared to their counterparts who had have

tertiary level education.


        Of the identified factors in equation [1.2], morale is the most significant influencer of

quality of life (β=174) followed by number of years of service spent in the JCF (β=0.162),

interpersonal trust (β=0.143), organizational trust (β=0.127) and lastly by educational level of the

respondents (β=0.109). Hence, trust critical role in influencing people’s quality of life.




                                                 339
Table 16: Explanatory Model of Quality of Life of Police Officers, N=371


                   Unstandardized     Standardized                               95% Confidence Interval
                     Coefficients     Coefficients           t         Sig.               for B
                              Std.                                                 Lower        Upper
                    B         Error       Beta                                     Bound        Bound
 (Constant)        29.378      1.962                       14.977        .000        25.521       33.236
 Negpsycho          -.075        .042        -.089         -1.796        .073         -.157         .007
 Dummy sex
                 -.388       .806                -.024      -.482        .630         -1.974          1.197
 (1=Male)
 Dummy
 Morale
                2.728        .790                .174       3.453        .001          1.175          4.282
 (1=Moderat
 e to High)
 Dummy
 Education     -1.813        .820                -.109     -2.212        .028         -3.425              -.201
 (1=Tertiary)
 OrgTrust         .078       .031                 .127      2.486        .013           .016           .139
 LengthSer      1.440        .438                 .162      3.287        .001           .578          2.301
 InterTrust    -5.224       1.810                -.143     -2.886        .004         -8.783         -1.665
ANOVA [7, 364] = 8.224, p value = 0.001
R Square = 0.137, adjusted R square = 0.120

N=371 (i.e. 93%)




Multivariate Analysis: Interpersonal Trust


Having identified the variables that influence quality of life of members of the JCF, the next step

in the process is to ascertain those factors for interpersonal trust. The issue of trust is critical to

police officer as they must trust (without vulnerability or gullibility) their colleagues as well as

the citizenry in order to effectively carry out the various assignment tasks that they are called

upon to do daily – “to serve, reassure and to protect”. The initial model (eqn. [2.1]) is stated

below, but final model is will be a parsimonious one as we believe that only the statistically

significant variable influence a dependent variable. And so the others are not needed in any


                                                 340
computation as they do not impact on the dependent variable in question.

        Ti =ƒ (QoL, To,Y, E, X,M, N)………………………….……...…………….…Eqn.
[2.1]

        Using logistic regression on the observational data collected from 400 police officers, we

tested equation [2.1], and found that interpersonal trust is influenced by length of service in the

JCF; organizational trust, satisfaction with current salary and sex of respondents – p value <

0.05. Hence, the final model will be a parsimonious one that explain 14.2% (i.e. Nagelkerke R

Square = 0.142; -2 Log likelihood = 364.622, N=356 or 89% of the data were used to test the

hypothesis in equation 2.1- this then yield a parsimonious model in equation [2.2]).


        We found that the long people remain in the JCF; interpersonal trust is increased by 1.7

times. Thus, this means that there is a direct statistical association between interpersonal trust

and length of service in the force. Embedded in these findings is the fact that some of the

officers who remain within the force for extended or long periods are those who among other

things trust their colleagues. In addition to the aforementioned issue of length of service, a

positive relation exits between organizational trust and interpersonal trust. Table 17 shows that

satisfaction with the current salary with reference to dissatisfaction directly influenced

interpersonal trust in the JCF. It follows that income – and more so the satisfaction with the

salary – affects how police trust other people. Thus, those police officers who are dissatisfied

with their current salary are less trusting of other people compared to those who are satisfied

with the present salary offered by the ministry of justice to police officers. Thus, the final model

for interpersonal trust is displayed in eqn. [2.2]

        Ti =ƒ (QoL, To ,Y, X)………………………….……...…………….…Eqn. [2.2]




                                                     341
Table 17: Explanatory variables Interpersonal Trust
                                                                                 95.0% C.I.for
                B         S.E.      Wald         df          Sig.     Exp(B)        EXP(B)
                                                                                Lower    Upper
 Sex            -.554       .280      3.918              1     .048      .574     .332       .995
 Morale          .226       .276       .668              1     .414     1.253     .729      2.153
 Tertiary       -.130       .277       .220              1     .639      .878     .510      1.512
 Length
 of              .510       .151     11.412              1     .001     1.666     1.239         2.240
 service
 Negative
                -.009       .014       .366              1     .545      .991       .964        1.020
 psych
 QoL            -.008       .018       .198              1     .657      .992      .957         1.028
 OrgTrust        .043       .011     15.380              1     .000     1.044     1.022         1.066
 Dummy
                 .042       .520       .007              1     .935     1.043       .377        2.889
 Salary
 Constant       -.954       .864      1.221              1     .269      .385
-2 Log likelihood = 364.622
χ2 (13) =15.901, p value = 0.044
Nagelkerke R Square = 0.142
N=356 (i.e. 89%)




Multivariate Analysis: Morale


Wanting to examine those variables that are likely to influence morale in the JCF, and having

collected survey research data on some 400 police personnel, we tested the hypothesis in

equation [3.1] by using the observational survey data.


        M=ƒ (QoL, To,Y, Tofficers, E, X, N)………………………….……..……….…Eqn.
[3.1]

        where QoL is quality of life; T o is generalized organizational trust; Tofficers denotes
        either rank and file officers or officer corp;Y is years of service; E is individual
        educational attainment; X is sex of respondents; M is morale; N is negative affective
        psychological condition.




                                               342
       Of the eleven variables were initially tested in the model [equation (3.1)], only 4 are

factors (i.e. statistically significant variables – p value < 0.05). The model that we will hereafter

refer to is a parsimonious one (i.e. one in which the variables are statistically significant as they

are the ones that are likely to influence morale and not the other, hence they are not contributing

the explanation of the morale in the force, which is the rationale behind us not using the

insignificant variables). Hence the final model [see Eqn. (3.1)] explains only 21.8% of variance

in morale. The factors are quality of life, trust in rank and file officer in the JCF, trust in officer

corp and interpersonal trust which are measured as always in reference to never. We found that a

respondent who indicated that he/she ‘always’ trust other people with reference to those who

reported never is 1.2 times more likely to have a higher morale compared to someone who

reported never (see Table 18).


       Furthermore, the more an individual reported that he/she trust rank and file officer, the

greater is morale of that police officer- more will increase by 1.7 times. On the other hand, the

relation between trust of those in the officer corp and morale is a negative one. Thus, the more

an individual that he/she indicated trusting those in the officer corp, the lower is the person’s

morale, or vice versa. Whereas there is a direct association between quality of life and morale of

police officers, this means that the lower the quality of life of police officer, the lower is the

officer’s morale. It should be noted here that there is statistical relation between educational

level and morale of police officers – p value > 0.05. Quality of life was measured using

Maslow’s needs hierarchy – these include state of health; afford basic necessities, love and

warmth, recognition and last self-actualization. Hence, lower quality of life denotes that the

individual’s indicate low values in any combination of five needs satisfaction scale.




                                                 343
       Using single a correlation, there is a statistical relation between morale and degree of

satisfaction with salary – positive association between satisfaction with salary with reference to

dissatisfaction with ones current salary and morale. However, when typology of satisfaction

with current salary was included among other variable, the bivariate relation dissipated. (see

Table 18).




Table 18: Explanatory model of Morale in the JCF

                                                                                          95.0% C.I.for
                             B         S.E.        Wald         df   Sig.     Exp(B)          EXP(B)
                                                                                         Lower     Upper
           Sex                 .023       .259           .008    1     .928     1.024       .617     1.699
           lnServie           -.164       .144          1.299    1     .254      .849       .641     1.125
           trust_always       1.929       .859          5.041    1     .025     6.885      1.278    37.101
           trust_someti
                               .829       .489          2.882    1     .090     2.292       .880     5.972
           me
           trust_neutral       .363       .536           .459    1     .498     1.438       .503     4.112
           dummy_sala
                               .981       .511          3.694    1     .055     2.668       .981     7.259
           ry
           Re_Rank            1.066       .266         16.006    1     .000     2.904      1.723     4.896
           Re_Officer         -.622       .222          7.819    1     .005      .537       .347      .830
           Institutional
                               .022       .011          3.777    1     .052     1.022      1.000     1.045
           trust
           Educational
                              -.267       .294           .820    1     .365      .766       .430     1.364
           _level
           psychologic
                              -.019       .014          1.911    1     .167      .981       .956     1.008
           _Negative
           Quality_of_l
                               .044       .018          5.846    1     .016     1.045      1.008     1.083
           ife
           Constant          -2.318      1.296          3.202    1     .074      .098
2 Log likelihood = 398.37
χ2 (13) =59.001, p value = 0.001
Nagelkerke R Square = 0.218
N=330 (i.e. 82.5%)

       What this discourse lacks so far is an understanding of the components of negative

psychological conditions of police officers. Approximately one-half of police officers have a


                                                 344
negative psychological condition, but what are the factors of this phenomenon. Any inquiry into

the issue of trust must include an examination of the psychological status of the people who are

involved in crime fight as well as serving, protect and reassure the public. Hence, the next issue

is to model the psychological conditions of the Jamaican Police Officer.


Multivariate Analysis: Negative Psychological Conditions


This aspect of the study seeks to examine particular predisposed variables and their relation with

the negative psychological condition. The general hypothesis that we will test is the model

below [Eqn. (4.1)], the final model will only constitute of those variables that are statistically

significant – that is, using the parsimonious principle.



        N=ƒ (M, QoL, Ti, J, S, E, To,A, E, X, )…………………….…….…Eqn. [4.1]



       where N is negative affective psychological condition, QoL is quality of life; T o is
       generalized organizational trust; Ti denotes generalized interpersonal trust; E is
       individual’s educational attainment; X is sex of respondents; M is morale; A means age
       group; S being with current salary, J denotes willingness to change job owing to distrust
       within the force.

        Of the 10-variable used in model 4.1, when they are collectively placed in single model,

using multiple regression of observational survey data, only 3 of them came out to be

determinants of negative psychological state of police officers. They are willingness to change

ones job, satisfaction with current salary, and age group of respondents. Thus, the final model

in expressed in Eqn. [4.2], below:


        N=ƒ (J, S, A )…………………………………………………….….…….…Eqn. [4.2]




                                                 345
       The model is a good fit – ANOVA, F statistic [9, 345] = 3.679, p value = 0.001 < 0.05.

The explanatory variables explain 12% of the variance in negative psychological conditions (i.e.

adjusted R square). (See Table 19). Further examination of the model (see Table 19) revealed

that satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with current salary in JCF is the most significant factor that

influences the negative psychological condition of police officers (β= - 0.161), followed by

willingness (or unwillingness) to change job owing to the level of distrust (β= 0.135), and lastly

by age group of the respondents (β = - 0.131).          Embedded in each variable is particular

interpretation that we will now forward.


        There is a negative relation between negative psychological condition and satisfaction

with current salary. This means that police officers who are more satisfied with their current

salary are of a lower negative psychological condition compared to those who are less satisfied.

It should be noted here that only 8% of police officers are satisfied with their current salary, with

53% being dissatisfied compared to 30% who are very dissatisfied and 5% reported that they

were unsure. Similarly the relation between negative psychological condition and age group

(with the referent group being older police officers – i.e. age 36 years and over – and the

investigated group being those officers younger than 36 years) is a negative one. Such a finding

denotes that younger officers have a higher negative psychological condition compared to their

older colleagues – suggesting, that the more time an officer spends with the JCF the more he/she

accepts the sociopolitical environment in which he/she has to work). With respect to willingness

to change job owing to distrust (i.e. 33% indicated yes), there is a positive statistical association

between this variable and negative psychological state of police officers. This finding indicates

that those police officers who suggested a willingness to change their job owing to the level of

distrust have a greater degree of negative psychological condition. (see Table 19)


                                                346
       There are some issues that need to be highlighted here as there are some single relations

between a particular explanatory variable and negative psychological condition (or state) of

police officers (see Table 20). Although the following variables – morale, quality of life, and

organizational trust – are not a part of the general model (Eqn. 4.2), each is singly related to

negative psychological conditions. Based on the single correlation between morale and negative

psychological condition, there is a weak inverse association between the two aforementioned

variables – single correlation = - 0.12, p value = 0.014; with the similar association between

organizational trust and negative psychological conditions – single correlation = - 0.12, p value =

0.009. Whereas a weak positive statistical exists between negative psychological condition and

quality of life of police officers – single correlation = 0.085, p value = 0.048.




Table 19: Explanatory Variables of Negative Psychological Conditions

                   Unstandardized    Standardized                                   95% Confidence Interval
                     Coefficients    Coefficients            t         Sig.                  for B
                              Std.                                                    Lower        Upper
                    B         Error      Beta                                         Bound        Bound
 (Constant)        28.507      3.099                        9.198        .000           22.412       34.603
 Dummy
 Morale
                    -1.017       1.015           -.054     -1.002        .317           -3.013         .980
 (1=Moderate
 to high)
 Dummy
 Interpersonal
                    -1.387       1.137           -.065     -1.220        .223           -3.622         .849
 Trust
 (1=trust)
 Dummy Job
 Change              2.715       1.054            .136      2.576        .010             .642        4.789
 (1=Yes)
 dummy
 salary             -5.567       1.846           -.161     -3.015        .003           -9.199       -1.936
 (1=satisfied)
 Dummy
                     -.483       1.069           -.025       -.452       .652           -2.586        1.620
 Education

                                                 347
(1=Tertiary)

Quality_of_li
                   -.055       .071           -.043    -.780   .436    -.194    .084
fe
Organization
                   -.042       .041           -.057   -1.019   .309    -.122    .039
al_trust
Dummy Age
group
(1=ages less      -2.484      1.017           -.131   -2.443   .015   -4.484   -.484
than 36
years)
Dummy sex
(1=Male)            .208      1.034           .011     .201    .841   -1.826   2.242


ANOVA [7, 364] = 8.224, p value = 0.001
R Square = 0.137, adjusted R square = 0.120
N=371 (i.e. 93%)




                                              348
Discussion and Conclusion


The issue of generalized trust in Jamaica is very low. According to Powell, Bourne, & Waller

(2007), 4 out of every 10 people trust each other, and this is even lower in government as 7 out

of every 100 people trust them are its related institutions. There have been plethora of public’s

views on the matter corruption and low confidence in particular to the Jamaica Constabulary

Force (JCF), but this is not of what we speak but the issue of trust (distrust) from the perspective

of police officers about their colleagues. Should we expect distrust (or low trust) in the JCF to

be any different from that of the public? And do police officers trust each other and what about

the level of trust in current hierarchy? The police force constitutes a proportion of the general

population, and former group is undergoing some degree of distrust that is permeating the entire

society. This study sought to examine trust and morale in the police force as it has been alleged

by some practitioners that our assessment of the public does not necessarily reflect the

experiencing of the Jamaican police force.


       Like Anthony Harriott in an edited text titled “Understanding Crime in Jamaica” any

analysis of crime must include an investigation of politics and its role in the functioning of this

phenomenon. But, this is not of what we speak; as the of crime’s solution goes further to include

trust, trust, trust and its role in understanding crime as trust holds a society together. What has

been lacking in this discourse on crime and the police so far is the issue of trust as well as the

morale of police officers. Trust and morale are not merely abstract social concepts; these

construct aid in an understanding of the psychological state of people in particular police officers

who are expected to be fighting crime. Examining crime and the fear of criminal victimization

in Jamaica, Anthony Harriott wrote, “The effects of the fear of criminal victimization usually

extend beyond altering the psychological states of individuals to influencing their behaviour

                                                349
patterns” (2003, p. 57). A group of Caribbean scholars have studied social capital in Jamaica,

and in the process they examine determinants of interpersonal trust (Boxill, et al. 2007). In that

study, the predisposed variables were wealth, sex of respondents, victimized by crime and

corruption victimization. As such, the research did not review the role of trust and its importance

on profitability, credibility, integrity, cooperation, communication and information sharing

between groups, democracy and its influence on people in particular police officers. In another

study on ‘The Historical Roots of Violence in Jamaica: The Hearne Report 1949”, Amanda Sives

(in Harriott, 2003), omitted trust as precondition for the violence that emerged in the post-1920.

Hence, it is in response to the gap that exists between the literature and the reality and the

importance of trust to stable democracy, interpersonal relations and productivity as well as it

importance to understanding of crime that this scientific investigation arose.


        All societies – whether capitalistic or communistic – rely on human relations to carry out

their functioning.   The human resource is critical to personal, business, governmental and

societal relationship. Due to the interpersonal relationship trust plays the most crucial role in the

maintenance cooperation, civility, and a stable democracy. It does not cease there as honesty,

integrity, credibility are pivotal variables in all human relations. Trust is that factor that drives

low bureaucracy, high accountability, low production cost and efficiency. Hence, performance

relies on trust, and trust fosters greater performance. It is within this social construction and

cosmology that trust among police officer becomes an area of interest of study. Trust holds all

interpersonal relations together, and this includes businesses, organizations, and families

(Atkinson, & Butcher, 2003).       Trust gives a feeling of security, collectivism and positive

expectations that is essential for all human relations. Hence, the very nature of police job




                                                350
requires trust of colleagues, superiors and other key stakeholders within the Ministry of Security.

But what explains this current position?


        Post the uprising in Morant Bay in 1865 – which arose due to inequality and injustice

meted out to the slaves (i.e. the working class) by the plantacratic class – the Jamaica

Constabulary Force was formed to quell the disturbance that was to address the decent form the

slaves. So currently the distrust between the people and the state agency – the police- began as

early as in the nineteenth century. The police could not trust the people in order to execute their

hierarchical power, and the average person could not trust police because they were not there to

serve, protect or guard them against injustice, inequality and unfairness with the society.

Anthony Harriott (2000) - a criminologist from the University of the West Indies, Mona Campus,

Jamaica – offered some explanation on the objective and social construction of the police force

as medium of maintaining the status quo. He cited, “the central objective of this formation was

to ensure tighter control over the police constables to improve their capability and responsibility

in controlling the population at large and to safe guard the security and interest of the upper

class” (Harriott, 2000, p. 122).


        The police force’s paramilitary formation has helped to foster divide between the lower

and upper classes. Hence, the general perception of the police force is that the majority men are

women who are employed therein a corrupt – 8 out of every 10 people believe that the police are

corrupt. (Waller, Bourne, Minto, & Rapley, 2007, p. 14). There is plural debates as to the police

are not corrupt and that they are reflection of the social reality of the wider society; and that this

debate is unending. We are cognizant of this debate, but this paper will not seek to delve into

this discourse. However, we are concerned about the police’s perception of their colleagues. Do



                                                 351
police trust police? And what is the degree of morale in the force? And, what at the factors that

influence either trust or morale in the JCF?


        The problems within the JCF should not be confused with the symptoms, which include

corruption, dishonesty, abuse and misuse of power, miscommunication, morale and

miscommunication. But, among the problems that the JCF faces are distrust, hierarchal power,

bureaucracy, and ‘bad’ expectation. Owing the aforementioned issues, the JCF will continue to

face corruption, dishonesty, abuse and misuse of power over the citizenry because social and

business relationships are not based on litigation, but on trust. Whereas litigation enhances

cooperation, and that cooperation is a derivative of trust, within the context of highly developed

litigation and bureaucracy, society will emerge into a possible state of anarchy. Hence, the same

set of challenges that face the citizenry of the society – such as inequality, injustices, low wages

and fringe benefits, exploitation – are the same set of conditions with which police officers must

subject themselves. In a study on political culture in Jamaica, 30% of Jamaicans reported that

the country is going in the right direction (Powell, Bourne, & Waller, 2007, p.28). In addition to

the aforementioned issues, of the total population interviewed (a nationally representative survey

research of some 1,338 people), 72% of them indicated that they are concerned about the

possibility of being unemployed in the next 12 months, whereas 57% of Jamaican reported that

their salary cannot cover the family’s needs (Powell, Bourne, & Waller, 2007, p. 32).


        The police are not divorced from the citizenry as social psychologists claim that each

person must successfully integrate him/herself within a group by learning the cosmology and

practices that are there to guide social behaviour. Hence, each person subscribes to the same

demands, challenges and pressure of the group. Within this general perspective, the police are

expected to be byproducts of a general group; and so, the what should be the experiences of that

                                                352
group with respect to (1) trust, (2) morale, (3) variables that explain trust and morale, and (5)

quality of life, given that they face an uphill challenge to arrest increases in crime and violence.


        This research begins by providing answers to the questions of the state of trust in

Jamaican Constabulary Force (JCF) from the perspective of police officers currently employed

by the Ministry of National Security. Generally police officers reported that their level of trust

for other people is similar to that experienced in the society, as 7 out of 10 police officers trust

other people. However, it is the quality of the trust that we should be concerned about? As such,

7 out of every 10 people only trust on each other on a part time basis – sometimes. This study

went further that previous study on the phenomenon of trust in Jamaica, when we asked that

‘Generally do you trust other police officers?’ and 7 out of 10 officers trust their colleagues.

Furthermore, majority of the respondents cited that they trust each other (8 out of very 10), with

the same degree of trust being reported by officer about trusting their mothers. However, only 5

out of every 10 police officer indicated that they trusted their fathers. When we disaggregated

trust by police officer by either rank and file officers (i.e. from constables to inspectors) or office

corp (gazette ranked people – superintendents to commissioners).


        Of the respondents who were interviewed for this survey, 6 out of every 10 of them

trusted rank and file members of the JCF, whereas 5 out of 10 trusted those who are in the officer

corp. Not only did we examine interpersonal trust, self trust but we evaluate institution trust.

The institutions that were used in this aspect of the study are those within the JCF. The entities

within the JCF with which we examine for the level of trust that police officers have in these

entities were different for NIB Kingfish, BSI, PSB, CIB and other entities. We found that the

least trusted institution was the NIB Kingfish (i.e. 3 out of every 10 people); BSI (i.e. 6 out every

10 people); PSB (6 out of every 10 respondents), CIB (6 out of every 10 persons), and 7 out of

                                                 353
every 10 people reported trusting regular. Thus, trust in the Jamaica Constabulary Force was

relative high, as the rest of the society.


        The Jamaican police force is suffering from a crisis in morale. As 53% of the force

reported a low morale with 41% who indicated an average morale compared to 7% who cited a

high to a very high morale. Morale represents the psychological state of an individual, and so it

is with no surprise that 50% of the JCF reported a negative psychological state. The negative

psychological state of police officers coupled with the low morale are ingredients for aggressive,

dishonesty, uncooperativeness, low accountability, ‘bad’ expectation, suspicion and cynicism.

We are not promoting a rationale or a justification for police excesses, abuses, dishonesty,

corruption or distrust of the public with which they are expected to ‘serve, protect and reassure’.

However, we are proposing that many of the displayed symptoms of members within the JCF are

owing to the problems of trust and self actualization.          The issue of a moderate negative

psychological state of officers is an indicator of low self actualization, which justifies aggression,

abusive behaviour and fragility. But, what constitute morale in the JCF?


        Morale can be built or destroyed by social and other factors. This study has shown that

morale in the JCF is affected by interpersonal trust, quality of life, and trust for colleagues – rank

and file police officers as well as gazetted ranked officers. The survey showed that the most

influential factors of morale in the force are trust in rank and file police officers followed by trust

in the officer corp. It should be noted here that interpersonal trust of rank and file police officers

is directly related to increase in morale; with trust in the officer corp negatively influences

morale in the JCF. Embedded in this finding is a part of the explanation of the low morale in the

JCF, and that this is associated with distrust of those in the officer corp (i.e. those who are within

gazetted ranks – from assistant superintendents to commissioner). As the findings revealed

                                                 354
20.4% of total population indicated that they distrusted police officers who are within the officer

corp.


        The issue of low morale is far reaching as it produces unhealthy socio-political milieu.

Whenever morale is low, people with a particular geographical space begin to blame each other

for events done (or not done), there are much accusations, name-calling, communication

becomes guarded, people are worried of the intent and motives of another, suspicion becomes

rampant and then the issue of time wasting becomes a cost to the institution and by extension the

customers. When there is a low morale and distrust is coalesced with it, verbal, emotional and

physical abuses are likely to result. Individuals within this milieu become drained of energy and

joyfulness, the issue of hidden agenda; mistakes are always on the forefront of discussions

instead of real issues being raised and adequately addressed by the parties. Within such a

dysfunctional environment, there is always going to be defensive posturing, the settling of

disputed by way of litigation, lastly by highly bureaucratic structure that lacks accountability.


        The JCF was established bureaucratic institution in nineteenth century, and one in which

commands use the top-down approach. It follows that superiors, are likely to abuse their

authority in the reprimand and disciplining of their subordinates. This is evidence in the training

exercise – when new recruits are labeled “dog seed” and in the process of their training must

respond on command coupled with the degree of discriminatory practices of superiors. Such a

perspective may some merit as to the obedience, but the verse of this is it is creating negative

psychological conditions for future officers. Post the “dog seed” experiences, officers are not

debriefed and resocialized as to their importance and in the process culturalized to be positive as

they would have already being made to feel inferior. It follows that non-resocialized process that

has not taken place puts the officers in a self defeated position that when it is tested and

                                                355
highlighted during an operation with the public is so negatively and aggressively responded to by

these officers. While it is not necessarily the practice of all the officers, many of them are

oppressed by these negative psychological stigmatization, and in the process are away a day

when this will finally come to an end. Hence, on the first sign of this being repeated by the

public the officer become self defensive and are likely to vicious, aggressive, abusive and

vulnerable which requires psychological redress. This is a state of continuous internal conflict

between the id, the ego and the superego. It is then acted out with outburst, insubordination, and

disregard to the public with which they are called upon to serve.


        The product driven philosophy that once existed in the force is been modernized to that a

marketing driven philosophy. The force has been embarking on service delivery and to some

extent consumer (public) satisfaction, but during the process the officers with whom the practice

will be executed are not wholesaling undergoing retraining. Then there is the conflict of the

completing philosophies as the competing paradigm of community policing is not a general

philosophy within the force and this is also one of the reasons for the low morale. These are not

the only explanations for the morale dilemma currently being experience with the JCF as

dissatisfaction with the current salary is another factor. In addition to the dissatisfaction with the

current salary that is paid to police officers, another variable is the issue of human development.


        Humans have the need for self actualization, which includes advancement and police

officers are no different from the average individual with respect to self fulfillment and

actualization.   Hence, consistent with the need for aspiration, self-fulfillment and self-

actualization, there is a need for promotion, continuous retraining and education of the person.

Currently the JCF does not structure programme in regard to advancement, retraining,

continuous development, promotion, succession planning, and a job description which includes

                                                 356
duties to be carried out, and academic qualification for the specified position. This may create

the impression that academic education is the primary medium that is used to assess competence

but this is furthest from the reality as informal education is needed by police officers in order to

effectively execute their job function. Although education is a component that is used to

evaluate self-actualization, those officers within the force who possess the highest educational

achievement are experiencing a low morale compared to their lower academically achieved

colleagues. A part of this answer goes back to supervision – cooperation, team work and mutual

respect for others.


          Police organizations, like any other organization, are human systems. They are made up

of individuals with different perceptions, beliefs, values and attitudes. The propensity of an

individual to trust others is largely shaped by values, attitudes and experiences, among other

things.    The word trust (derived from the German word trost, meaning comfort) implies

instinctive and unquestioning belief in another person or thing (Reece & Brandt, 1996, p. 219).

At the system level, trust is institutional and based on roles, systems or reputation, from which

inferences are drawn about the trustworthiness of an individual (Atkinson & Butcher, 2003).

Trust can be seen as given, based on the role that an individual plays. Trust in an organization

refers to the global evaluation of an organization’s trustworthiness as perceived by the employee.

Employees continually observe the organizational environment when they consider whether or

not to trust their organization.


          Organizational processes communicate the organization’s views of its employees and

their roles, and employees will respond to trust relations communicated by the organization. (Tan

& Tan, 2000). Lack of trust is one of the most serious and common barriers amongst people.

Without trust people are reluctant and fearful about revealing their thoughts and feelings because

                                                357
the perceived risks are too high. Where trust is present people are likely to feel less vulnerable

in the presence of others and will communicate more freely. As the trust level declines, people

will raise their defenses and open communication will likely suffer.


       People who are more trusting and communicate freely with each other an enabling an

empowering climate will develop, i.e. supportive of high - level individual and team

performances will develop. In an environment of low trust, people are likely to examine the

motives of others, look for hidden meanings, and demand documentation on every transaction, or

to have some intermediary present in any during even routine transactions. Most writers agree

and point out that the trust level is the thermometer of individual and group health. When trust is

present, people function naturally and openly, thus creating an open, relaxed and comfortable

organizational climate. In this kind of scenario, personal and group integrity is likely to remain

high and people are able to devote their energy to accomplishing organizational goals and

seeking opportunity for personal growth and development.


       In the current global context, organizations must be able to adapt to changes in the

environment dictated by economic, social, political and technological advances. It is well known

that change brings with it uncertainty, fear and resistance. These problems can be made worse in

an organization that is characterized by fear and mistrust. Leaders and managers who seek to

introduce change in such a system are likely to experience high levels of resistance fuelled by

rumours and suspicion. It is important, therefore, that organizations such as a police organization

not only seek to build and maintain trust among its external customers but also seek to create an

organizational culture and climate in which there are high levels of trust.




                                                358
       Lack of trust is one of the most serious and common barriers amongst people. Without

trust people are reluctant and fearful about revealing their thoughts and feelings because the

perceived risks are too high. Where trust is present people are likely to feel less vulnerable in

the presence of others and will communicate more freely. As the trust level declines, people will

raise their defenses and open communication will likely suffer. People who are more trusting and

communicate freely with each other an enabling an empowering climate will develop, i.e.

supportive of high - level individual and team performances will develop. Hence it is expected

when the police officers indicated that approximately 63% of them have a moderate willingness

to trust other officers with sensitive information. The lack of willingness to share critical

information with each other is a state of the dilemma with respect to trust, and this is further

compounded by the current state of morale in that same institution.


       In an environment of low trust, people are likely to examine the motives of others, look

for hidden meanings, and demand documentation on every transaction, or to have some

intermediary present in any during even routine transactions. Most writers agree and point out

that the trust level is the thermometer of individual and group health. When trust is present,

people function naturally and openly, thus creating an open, relaxed and comfortable

organizational climate. In this kind of scenario, personal and group integrity is likely to remain

high and people are able to devote their energy to accomplishing organizational goals and

seeking opportunity for personal growth and development.


       According to Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman (1995), different definitions and models of

trust focus on features such as integrity, competence, openness, and vulnerability, reliability and

positive expectations. These features refer to trust as a positive expectation that another person

will not – through words, actions or decisions – act opportunistically. At the group level, trust is

                                                359
a collective phenomenon. Teams represent collective values and identities (Shamir & Lapidot,

2003). Interaction histories give information that is useful in assessing dispositions, intentions

and motives of others. Individuals’ judgement about others’ trustworthiness is anchored, at least

in part, on their prior experiences the behaviour of others (Kramer, 1999). As values are

commonly believed to guide behaviour, sharing common values helps team members to predict

each other’s and leaders’ behaviour in the future. Shared values and shared goals reduce

uncertainty, but also determine which types of behaviours, situations or people are desirable of

undesirable Teams also have rule-based trust. Rules, both formal and informal, include the

knowledge that members have about tacit understanding.            Information contributes to the

predictability of the other, which in turn contributes to trust. When the trust level in an

organization is high, this is seen as the employees’ expression of faith and confidence in the

leadership.


       In high trust workplaces, the environment is a healthy one. It is one in which there is

good communication, people are polite, cordial, focus on togetherness, tolerance, cooperation,

closeness, vibrant relationships, positive expectations, and effective collaboration. The staffers

within high trust milieu are highly motivated; there is no unnecessary hierarchy, people focus on

team, and team building. Then the very bureaucratic nature of the JCF is a contributory factor to

the low morale; and the level of trust (low trust or distrust or low confidence) is hampered by the

bureaucracy. The findings of the current study has an inversely relationship between trusting

members within the officer corps and morale, and the rationale of this is not necessarily

transparent. As the police see officers as a part of the institutional hierarchy and structure, and

so the trust is still seen as bureaucratic, and bureaucracy breeds low trust (also see, Covey, &

Merrill, 2006, p.251). There is a need for some bureaucracy within any organization as this is


                                               360
healthy.   However, Michener & Burt (1975) examined factors that account for leadership

successes. They believed that when a subordinate is elicited in being compliant, the production

was higher and the compliance was greater than when they use authoritarian style leadership.


       In summary, although the level of morale is low in the JCF, majority of the police

officers do not want to leave and seek employment outside of the JCF. One of the rationale for

this could be the possibility of successful seeking employment in the outside of the JCF may be

difficult due to academic qualification, competence and the nature of the job. The police give a

certain degree of power, and can be used to the advantage of officers. Another important factor

within this discourse is the disengagement. Given that all officers have already been employed

and understand the idiosyncrasies of the job and the difficulty of being ‘relief of their jobs’, some

of them are merely working for an income, within the general context of socio-economic climate

of the nation. This disengagement is as a result low morale, and distrust (i.e. low confidence). It

destroys creativity, energy, passion for the job, and cooperation with various agents.


       Therefore, the modernization of JCF cannot be limited to equipment, institutional

changes, with fundamental retraining of the human capital. The JCF needs to address the low

morale and the quality of trust in its institution as these are influencing the quality of its service

delivery. The issue of corruption, police abuses and excesses, dishonest cops, to name of few

issues are not the problem with the JCF delivery a ‘good’ quality service to its customers (i.e.

citizenry). Those issues are symptoms of the problem of low trust, low quality trust, negative

psychological state of police officers and the low morale within that institution. As such,

bureaucratic nature of the force, the training programme of recruitment is also a part of the

dilemma that the institution faces. Currently, this study has provided us with some of the factors

quality of life of the Jamaican Police Officer; and should be noted here that 50% of officers

                                                 361
reported that they have a high quality of life, with some 46% reported moderate compared to 5%

who indicated that their quality of life was low. Hence, the state of the job requires high energy,

alert, focused and positive individuals; and at the moment the force is suffering from these vital

ingredients. Then, based on the nation’s investment in this institution, and the nature of the

force, we should not be expected more that what we are presently receiving from this

organization.   Trust is the glue that hold a society, a group, an organization together and

currently the quality of trust, quality of life and morale in the force as the problems, but we have

been addressed the symptoms such as corruption, abuses, dishonesty and integrity without the

recognition of the quality life of people who we are expecting to protect us.


        How do we expect an honest, highly credible, least corrupted, highly respectful force of

the rights and freedom of the citizenry as well one in which police are not abusive to public when

its members are substantially drawn from the lower class. We are not for one miniature of a

second promoting that social class explains the problem of the force or that the lower social are

untrainable, innately corrupt or abuse but that the challenges – such as low esteem or negative

psychological conditions – are components of inner city communities are that these are

necessarily resolved during the training exercise at the Academy. The culturalized of social

abuse, the cognitive pressure of inner city living and the culture of survival at all cost while

living in the inner city are not removed from officers during training or while on the duty; and

this early socialization will still drive the behaviour of police officers.


        The hierarchy of the JCF does not institute a training programme with will address the

low self-esteem issue of many of its recruit while in training, and to training programme further

intensify the negative psychological scar that many members would have brought into the force

from their socialization. To further complicate matters, the bureaucratic nature of the job breeds

                                                  362
distrust for the structure, and many officers would have been drawn from different political

enclaves, which are warring factions. They were socialized to distrust the other political ideology

and person from an early age, and this is not resolved during the training exercise. And neither

does the superior structure a force that is apolitical, and replaces the political divide with

togetherness, cooperation, integrity, credibility, honesty, and trust. Embedded this argument is

the zero tolerance approach that should be taken against police officers who are found to be

political or acted in any manner to create a perception of political patronage or take a decision

that is construed as a political advantage to one of the parties in the society.


       Let us examine the issue of recruiting middle class (i.e. highly educated Jamaicans) as a

replacement for the lower class Jamaicans in alleviate some of the challenges that befall inner

city residents. The current study has shown that presently the police officers with tertiary level

education reported the lowest level of morale in the JCF. Embedded in these findings are the

nature of the job, the expectation of this group, the bureaucratic nature of the institution, the

dominance of particular practices that have been used in the past the inability of these men and

women to change these owing to resistance from other members of the office as well as the

distrust for this group of people by other group explain the low morale. It is not surprising that

the rate of turnover of highly educated graduate entrants is as they are. With the low morale of

this group of police officers, the frustration, the cynicism and suspicion that they interface and

the unwillingness to change information with them in addition to aid them in their duties, the

choice of remaining will be low as they will consider the opportunity cost of staying significantly

lower than if they were to move on to other employment.


       The symptoms of corruption, crime, dishonesty, fraud, abusiveness, low integrity and

credibility, the unwillingness to share information, uncooperativeness, low salaries and

                                                 363
disengagement are just some of the indicators on the problems of trust, injustices, social

inequalities and social exclusion that the police are facing that explains the tendency for them to

exhibit the aforementioned symptoms. People are by nature individualistic and so if they are

having a low quality of life, we should expect reduced trust. And reduced trust translates into

uncooperativeness, low social capital, corruption, dishonesty, crime and violence, as well as

abusiveness. The problem is not crime, but the distrust, injustices and social inequalities that we

need to urgently address. Given that we drawn most of the members from the police force from

the lower class with all the social exclusion and negative conditions of those societies, why are

we expecting ‘Good morning Sir’, ‘May help you’, and the all the social graces when the wider

lower class members are physical abusive, and are tarnished from the negative psychological

issues of those geopolitical spaces. The issues is further compounded when during the training

exercise – at the academy – trainees are once again and repeatedly psychologically abused by the

archaic methodological principles of police training, which endorse ‘vulgarity’, ‘loudness’,

‘humiliation’, ‘suppression’, and hierarchal power of the force that fails to recognize the

importance of positive psychology on human social interaction. Trust is crux of the problems

that we currently face and not crime that emerges as a result of this crucible phenomenon. Social

capital is built on trust.   Hence, trust justifies the uncooperativeness between groups, the

credulity and integrity issues, the corruption, the dishonesty, the injustices, the social inequality,

the bureaucratic nature of the low trust society, high transactional cost, the unwillingness of

people to share information, and a whole candid and unauthentic approach is not taken

accountability and cynicism. Trust is the problem, and crime is the symptom. We must rebuild

trust in order to address many of the issue of social ills that the society faces today. Let us not




                                                 364
blame it on crime, corruption, youth, men, the police or any other matter, as demon that must be

buried is distrust.


        Despite the flaws in the recruitment of the police officers, the morale deficiency that they

are currently experiencing and the dissatisfaction with their survivability with the economy,

buying more guns and making these available to distrusting police officers who are of a low

morale is fuelling anarchy, an increase in unconventional political participation – protest,

demonstration, boycott and stick out – suspicion and cynicism that are property of distrust. This

study has not analyzed the hierarchical structure of the force with a context of it annals, but a

clear symptom of distrust that the force is presently undergoing is due to the need to decolonize

the entity. Young police officers feel clearly that they are stifled by the hierarchy, and this

explains an aspect to the low morale that is befalling the future of the Jamaican police force. The

issues that arise herein are can there be cooperation, high production, low human turnover of the

qualified young with the current hierarchy within the force as it is fostering the low morale.


        It is highly unlikely that there will be a collect ‘good’ expectation from the social

conscience of the society, when there is low trust and morale. The police similar to the public

believe that the structure is oppressive, and this perception does not build social capital,

development, integrity, character and cohesion between or among different groups. A nation

cannot be built distrust, and the police force is no exception. As trust is what holds a society.

And so, complex litigations, social stratification, economic prowess and colonization in whatever

classification will not herald a cooperative society. The building of strong social capital begins

with established, building and maintaining trust between people and people or people and

institution. A healthy civil society is one in which trust is high as good government and business

cannot operative effectively with civic cooperation, and this is based on trust.

                                                365
       According to Francis Fukuyama “…economic activity represents a crucial part of social

life and is knit together by a wide variety of norms, rules, moral obligations, and other habits that

together shape the society” (1995, p.7), which emphasize the role of trust in human relations.

Trust is not only a phenomenon; it is a tool that binds a group together under some shared

consensus. Norms, rules, moral, laws, governance and are all knitted together by the seed of

human trust, and not by the spirit of some greater power. And this is why wars often emerge

whenever distrust replaces trust. In societies where there is anarchy, war, high degree of

corruption and crimes - Haiti, Iraq to name a few – has a low degree of confidence (or

generalized trust). In Jamaica, some of our experiences reflect some of the same fundamental

traits of nations such as Haiti and Iraq, as the people have low confidence in others and socio-

political institutions – excluding the family and the school (see Powell, Bourne, & Waller, 2007,

p. 27) and the high confidence (or trust) that the society has in the family and schools would

justify the different between the nation, and why the society has not disintegrated like that of

Haiti or Iraq. Hence, this explains why Francis Fukuyama wrote that “these rules or habits gave

members of the community grounds for trusting one another” (1995, p.9) as trustworthy entities

beget trust, and trust fosters trustworthiness and vice versa.        Fukuyama added that “…all

successful economic societies …are united by trust”, (1995, p. 9) and a complex legal

framework.


       Another important cohesive factor within any democratic society is the willingness of
       individuals to trust other persons, and to have trust and confidence in the political leaders,
       the government, and the major institutions of the society (Powell, Bourne, & Waller,
       2007, p.23)

       The police force like all other groups (or institutions) is bind together by trust. And

internal trust fosters cooperation, production, efficiency, stability, and so trust and the quality of

trust must be improved in order for the body to effective address crime. Trust is the problem as

                                                 366
well as morale. In literature on human relations, Jack Halloran and Douglas Benton (1987)

argued that morale explains aspect to low job performance, and that this further clarifies the easy

with which police officers are irritated by the socio-political and geopolitical space and as

Halloran & Benton reported “…working under pressure with blowing up” (p. 103). The issue of

morale (or the low morale) goes beyond merely job performance to job satisfaction coupled with

the reciprocated sociopsychological behaviour that accompanies the tenets of high morale.


        We believe that the issues of morale and trust are             so    pivotal     in   police     officers

executing their job that we taking an active role in comprehensively aid our reader understand it

disbenefits on the society. Thus, we will make an extensive quote from the work of Halloran &

Benton:


        If employees don’t have the tools and managerial latitude to perform, they can be neither
        satisfied nor productive. Efforts have been made for years to establish a link between job
        satisfaction, morale, and productivity – largely to no avail. There is not a direct link
        because the relationship between job satisfaction 24 and productivity is more a matter of
        perception than direct link.

        Again, there is an analogy to Hertzberg’s dual-factor theory: if relative job satisfaction is
        present, high productivity is still not guaranteed because of other variables such as job
        design, organizational hierarchy, and age of the organization. But if relative job
        satisfaction is not present, long-term productivity gains are very difficult to achieve.

        The relationship between high-quality job performance25 and productivity is more direct.
        The whole point of job performance is to accomplish useful, productive jobs. Total
        organizational effectiveness is based on how productive as well as efficient each
        individual is in the organization. Enabling individuals to performance well and to be
        satisfied in their jobs contributes to accomplishment of organizational objectives.

        There is a delicate balance between too much pressure for productivity and high morale.
        Too little pressure results in a goof-off organization. Too much pressure results in a
        damn-the organization, I’ll-only do-what’s necessary attitude. When management shows

24
   Job satisfaction, according to Halloran & Benton is “a personal matter based on each individual’s value system
and attitude held about the job” (1987, p. 120)
25
   Job performance is “both the beginning and ending point in determining how effective people are in their jobs”
(Halloran & Benton, 1987, p. 120).

                                                       367
       consideration and concern for individual difference of workers, increased job
       performance and consequently increased job satisfaction are the results (1987, p.107)


       This research found that 5 out of every 10 police officer reported a low morale, with 4 in

10 indicated a moderate morale compared to 1 in 10 who said they had a high morale and this

speaks to the social dilemma that officers who are ‘serve, protect, and reassure’ are undergoing.

The work of Halloran & Benton has undoubtedly provides us with an understanding of the role

of morale in job performance. It follows that - with the 4 out of every 10 police officers

reporting a low trust in the hierarchy, and 4 out of 10 indicated moderate and 2 out of 10 saying a

high trust – there is an urgent need to address these aforementioned two phenomena. Despite the

low degree of morale and the fact that trust of the hierarchy is positive influencing morale in the

role, with morale affecting job performance within the context of high crimes, the problem of

trust and morale must be tackled in the wider society as well as in the police force in order to

effective address the social ills in the society in particular crime, violence and victimization.


       Some people may be inclined to argue that the morale in the force is primarily the

experience of officers with below tertiary level education. This is furthest from the reality of the

JCF as the current work has revealed that 8 out of every 10 officers who has tertiary level

training had between low to very low morale compared to 5 out of 10 of those with primary level

education, 5 out of 10 people with post-secondary and same figure of those with college level

training. This low morale in the force within the argument of Halloran & Benton must be

explanation job performance and satisfaction but is equally explaining the role of the hierarchy

of JCF in contributing to this social dilemma.


       We cannot deny the association between morale and job performance neither between it

and job satisfaction nor cooperation, but the building of morale will not require some quick fix as

                                                 368
it like an egg. It [morale] takes a long time to be developed, and when it has been developed if it

is destroy not that it is impossible to restore, but the process to long and tedious. In recreate

morale and trust, we must ensure that the balance be delicate and that it can only be attained

through the actions of the leaders (management including government) as trust begets trust. And

that trust does not operate in an environment of untrustworthiness (also see, John Coleman,

2000, p. 24), low transparency and accountability, unwillingness to share information as well as

dishonesty, deception or negative expectation. The police are pivotal in the resolution of the

crime symptom and so amendments must be made to the training exercise of police officer. As

an   environment      in   which    there    are   negativity,   passivity,   cynicism,   bureaucracy,

untrustworthiness, low morale and deception is a make for social disintegration and decay.

Thus, the hierarchy of the JCF (i.e. position of assistant commissioners and beyond) must be

changed in keeping with the need to modernized it functions and address the social ills that are

present with the institution as it is a part of the solution.


        In concluding, the JCF is not only an organization (i.e. an entity or institution), the police

force is a family of women and men and so it becomes a social system. And all social systems

are a collection of individual actors interacting with each other in order to achieve a common

goal (also see Parson, 1951; Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988; 1990).                It follows that any

disintegration of that social system will not it be able to effectively address other people’s

concerns as the internal social problems will not it ability to do so. Hence, this social structure is

ailing and any effective panacea must be internal as well as external. As the police force draws

its recruit from the social that is equally undergoing social ills. Any modernization of this social

structure (also see Coleman, 1988; 1990) must include the human capital and the social capital of

the JCF.


                                                   369
Acknowledgement


I would like to extend by sincerely of gratitude to a number of individuals who collected the data

for this study, and whom will be remained unanimous because of the nature of the work. Thank

you. I would have preferred to make you all authors or use your names in this section, by one of

the persons indicated that this should not be done and outlined the rationale for the position. I

love you always, and thank you once more.




                                               370
Reference


Atkinson, S., & Butcher, D. (2003). Trust in management relationship. Journal of Managerial
   Psychology, 18:282-304.

Arrow, K. (1973). Information and economic behaviour. Stockholm: Federation of Swedish
   Industries.
Arrow, K. (1974). The Limits of Organization. New York: Norton.
Baier, A. (1986). Trust and Antitrust. Ethics, 96: 231-260.
Barnett, L. (1999). Proscribing Corruption Under Jamaican Law: A Legal Roadmap. In The
        Carter Center (Ed.), The Carter Center, Combating Corruption in Jamaica: A Citizen’s
        Guide (pp. 22-45). Atlanta: The Carter Center
Bigley, G.A., & Pearce, J.L. (1998). Straining for shared meaning in organization science:
        Problems of trust and distrust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 405–421.
Blind, P. K. (2007, June). Building trust in government in the twenty-first century: Review of
        literature and emerging issues. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Seventh
        Global Forum on Reinventing government Building trust in government, Vienna, Austria.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The form of capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the
   Sociology of Education, ed. J. Richardson, pp. 241-58. New York: Greenwood Press.

Bourne, P. (2007a). Determinants of well-being of the Jamaican elderly. Unpublished master’s
   thesis, the University of the West Indies, Mona, Kingston, Jamaica.

Bourne, P. (2007b). Population Ageing and the state of elderly, with emphasis on aged
   Jamaicans. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Bourne, P., & Beckford, O. (2008). An examination of Generalized Trust in Jamaica: Using
      empirical data to model trust. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Brown, C. (2006). Toward a national security revolution in Jamaica: Understanding the Law
   Enforcement ideological spectrum and the criminal phenomenon evolutionary continuum.
   Kingston: Brownwit Publishers.

Caribbean Food and Nutrition Institute, [Cajanus]. (1999). Health of the elderly. Cajanus
   32:217-240.

Charles, C. (2003). “Business Ethics in Jamaica and the Problem of Extortion by
       Counter-Societies.” Unpublished Paper. New York: City University of New York.

Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
      Sociology 94:S95-120.

Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundation of Social Theory. Cam bridge, MA: The Belknap Press of
      Harvard University Press.

Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2:265-279.
                                              371
Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In Nebraska symposium
      on motivation: 275-320.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Dibben, M.R., & Davies, H.T.O. (2004). Public trust in health care. Trustworthy doctors in
      confidence building system. Quality Safety Health Care, 13:88-89.

Eldemire, Denise. (1995). A situational analysis of the Jamaican elderly, 1992. Kingston: The
   Planning Institute of Jamaica.

Eldemire, Denise. (1994). The Elderly and the Family: The Jamaican Experience. Bulletin of
   Eastern Caribbean Affairs, 19:31-46.

Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust. The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York:
      Free Press.
Gambetta, D. (1988). Can we trust trust? In D. Gambetta (ed.). Trust: Making and breaking
     cooperative relationships: 213-237. Cambridge, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Garske, J. P. (1975). Interpersonal trust and construct complexity for positively and negatively
       evaluated persons. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1(4): 616–619.
Gordon, D. (1989). Class, Status and Mobility in Jamaica, 2nd ed. Kingston: Institute of Social
       and Economic Research, ISER.

Govier, T. (1994). Is it a jungle out there? Trust, distrust, and the construction of social reality.
       Dialogue, 33:237-252.

Granovetter, M.S. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness.
      American Journal of Society, 91:481-510.
Halloran, J. & Benton, D. (1987). Applied Human relations, 3rd ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Hardin, T. (1993). The street-level epistemology of trust. Politics & Society, 21:505-529.

Harriott, A. (ed.) (2004). Understanding Crime in Jamaica – New Challenges for Public Policy.
       Kingston: University of the West Indies Press. 2003. (ed.) 239 pages.

______. (2002). Transforming the Jamaican SFs: Improving Effectiveness and Efficiency.
     Security and Defense Studies Review. Vol. 2 # 1 page 19-45.

______. (2000a). Police and Crime Control in Jamaica: Problems of Reforming Ex-colonial
      Constabularies. Kingston: University of the West Indies Press.

______. (2000b). Police and Citizenship: The Tolerance of Police belligerence in Jamaica. West
      Indian Law Journal Vol. 28 #1. Pages 51-74.

_______. (2000c). Police reform in the Commonwealth Caribbean. Caribbean Dialogue. Vol. 6
      #1-2. Page 107-119.

                                                372
_______. (1998). Policing Styles in the Commonwealth Caribbean: The case of Jamaica.
     Caribbean Journal of Criminology and Social Psychology. Vol. 3 #1-2. Page 60-82.

_______. (1997). Reforming the Jamaica Constabulary Force: From Political to Professional
     Policing? Caribbean Quarterly (1997) Vol. 42 #4 Pages 1-12.

Harriott, A., Brathwaite, F., & Wortley, S. (Eds.). (2004). Crime and Criminal Justice in the
       Caribbean. Kingston: Sarawak Publications

Headley, B. (2002). Man on a mission: Deconstructing Jamaica’s controversial crime
      management head. Social and Economic Studies, 51:179-191
James, H.S. Jr., & Sykuta, M.E. (2004, October). Generalized and Particularized Trust in
       Organization. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the International Society for New
       Institutional Economics meetings in Tucsan, Arizona, USA.
Jones, Karen (1996). Trust as an affective attitude. Ethics, 107(1): 4–25. In Markόczy, L. (2003).
       Trust but verify: Distinguishing distrust from vigilance. (Accessed April 23, 2008 from
       http://www.goldmark.org/livia/papers/socint/socint.pdf.

Kramer, R.M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organization: Emerging perspectives, enduring
      questions. Annual Review Psychology, 50:569-598.

Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and
      realities. Academy of Management Review, 23, 438-458.

Lewicki, R.J., Tomlinson, E.C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust
      development: Theoretical Approaches, Empirical Evidence, and Future Directions.
      Journal of Management 32: 991-1022.

Lewicki, R.J., & Stevenson, M.A. (1998). Trust development in negotiation: Proposed actions
      and a research agenda. Journal of Business and professional Ethics, 16(1-3):99-132.

Markόczy, L. (2003). Trust but verify: Distinguishing distrust from vigilance. (Accessed April
      23, 2008 from http://www.goldmark.org/livia/papers/socint/socint.pdf.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational
      trust. Academy of Management Review 20, 3: 569-598.

Mishra, R.C., &Morrissey, M.A. (1990). Trust in employee/employer relationships: A survey of
   West Michigan Managers. Public Personnel Management19:443-461.

Morgan, B.J. (2005). Trust, Education and development in Jamaica, 1950-2000. Unpublished
  doctorial dissertation, Case Western Reserve University – Los Angeles.

Parson, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Parson, T. (1963). On the concept of influence. Public Opinion Quarterly 27: 37-62.

                                                373
Planning Institute of Jamaica, [PIOJ]. (1990-2007). Economic and Social Survey of Jamaica,
    1989-2007. Kingston: PIOJ.

Powell L.A., Bourne P., & Waller L. (2007). Probing Jamaica’s Political culture, volume 1:
   Main trends in the July-August 2006 Leadership and Governance Survey. Kingston, Jamaica:
   Centre for Leadership and Governance.

Puusa, A., & Tolvanen, U. (2006). Organizational Identity and Trust. Electronic Journal or
        Business Ethics and Organization, 11:28-33.
Reece, B.L., & Brandt, R. (1996). Effective human relations in organizations. New York:
        Haughton Mifflin.
Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist,
        35(1): 1–7.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., and Camerer, C. (1998). Not so Different After All:
      A Cross-Discipline View of Trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393-404.

Ries, S., and G. Murphy. 1999. Quality of life. How to get it, How to keep it? New York: An
   Imprint of William Morrow and Company.

Shamir, B., & Lapidot, Y. (2003). Trust in organizational superiors: Systemic and Collective
   considerations. Organization Studies, 24:463-491.

Stolle, D. (2001). Clubs and congregations: The benefits of joining an association in K.S. Cook
    (ed), trust in society. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Tan, H.H. & Tan, C.S. (2000). Toward the Differentiation of Trust in Supervisor and Trust in
     Organization. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126: 241–260.
The Professional Standards Branch, the Jamaica Constabulary Force. (2005). Anti-Corruption
   strategy: Confronting Corruption. Kingston: Jamaica Constabulary Force.

Transparency International. (1997-2007). Transparency International Annual Report. Berlin:
   Transparency International.

Uslaner, E. M., (2002). The Moral Foundations of Trust. New York, NY: Cambridge
       University Press.
United Nations Development Programme, [UNDP]. (Ud). Building Stronger Social Capital for
   Belarus. Retrieved on April 20, 2008 from http://undp.by/pdf/1321_eng_Chapter_5.pdf

United States Department of Justice, [USDOJ]. (2003). Principles of good policing: Avoiding
   belligerence between police and citizens.       Retrieved on April 24, 2008 from
   www.usdoj.gov/crs

Vasciannie, S. (2008). The Cobb Family Lecture 2008. The Human Rights Project in Jamaica.
   Kingston: Pear Tree Press.


                                                374
Waller, L., Bourne, P., Minto, I., & Rapley, J. (2007). A landscape assessment of political
  corruption in Jamaica. Kingston: Caribbean Policy Research Institute, [CaPRI).

Webster. (1913). Webter’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield:
      Merriam Company. In Markόczy, L. (2003). Trust but verify: Distinguishing distrust
      from vigilance. (Accessed April     23,                   2008               from
      http://www.goldmark.org/livia/papers/socint/socint.pdf.

Yamagishi, T. (1986). The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. Journal of
      Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 110–116.
Zebrowitz, L. A. (1990). Social perception. England: Open University Press.




                                              375
Appendix I




                  Educational level and Age group, in %, N=391


                       Age group


                              Youth      26–35            36-55          56+


              Primary         1.6       0.6                1.9     11.1


              Secondary       53.0      36.5              50.5    54.0

Educational
level:

              Post            13.6      19.5             21.4     12.7
              Secondary


              Tertiary        31.8      43.4             26.2     22.2


              Total           66        159             103       63

                      χ2 (9) = 35.237, ρ value =0.001, cc=0.288




                                               376
Appendix II




                                              400 Police
                                              Personnel




                     243                                                         153
                     Males                                                     Females




                                                                                         73 other ranks
                                                            80 constables
   180 constables            63 other ranks                 In each of the
                                                                                         In each of the
                                                                                           20 divisions
                                                            20 divisions




   9 constables in                                          4 in constables
                             3 other ranks                 In each of the 20             3 other ranks in
   Each of the 20                                                                        Each of the 20
                             In each of the
      Divisions                                               Divisions                      divisions
                             20 division




  Figure 0: Sample Design




                                                   377
Appendix III

                                        QUESTIONAIRE



The issues of morale and trust (or distrust) are topical matters that are on the forefront of plethora
of discussions. Despite the varying discussions, the matter has never been examined from a
scientific perspective, more so in the Jamaica Constabulary Force. Hence, this instrument (i.e. a
questionnaire) will be used to investigate the two aforementioned phenomena in particular in the
Jamaica Constabulary Force (i.e. JCF). The instrument consists of 46 items – they include
demographic variables (e.g. age, Length of service in the JCF), socioeconomic (e.g. economic
situation) to varying typologies of trusts, and morale.

        The data that will be given does not require any personal label (i.e. name, badge number,
et cetera) as we do not seek to identify any particular person. Instead, we require that you
complete the question and return on completion. But, if at any point in this question we have
become uncomfortable and you like to cease, you have all right to do so.




Instruction(s): Please indicate your answers by filling in the blank space – indicate the number
for each response based on the category to the question - or circling the appropriate response
where necessary.



 Q1. How long have you being employed to the JCF? (Please specify) ____________.
  Q2. What is your highest level of education? (last attended)
        1.     Primary                                                 [ ]
       2.     Secondary                                                [ ]
       3.     Post Secondary (Heart NTA Vocational Training) [       ]
       4. College                                                 [ ]
        5.     University                                              [ ]
3. What is your mother’s highest level of education? (last attended)
       1.     No formal education                                [ ]
       2.     Primary                                            [ ]
       3.     Secondary                                          [ ]
       4.     Post Secondary (Heart Vocational Training)         [ ]
       5.     College                                            [ ]
       6.     University                                         [ ]

 4. What is your father’s highest level of education? (last attended)

                                                 378
      1.      No formal education                                 [ ]
      2.      Primary                                             [ ]
      3.      Secondary                                           [ ]
      4.      Post Secondary (Heart Vocational Training)          [ ]
      5.      College                                             [ ]
      6.      University                                          [ ]
5. How would you best describe your present position in the society?
      1.     Lower (i.e. working)class                            [ ]
      2.     Middle class                                         [ ]
      3.     Upper class                                          [ ]
6. Are you satisfied with your present salary?
  1. Very satisfied                                               [ ]
  2. Satisfied                                                    [ ]
  3. Not Sure                                                     [ ]
  4. Dissatisfied                                                 [ ]
  5. Very dissatisfied                                            [ ]

Questions 7 to 16: Now I am going to read a number of situations and I would like you to give
a value that best reflects how you truly feel about your present life circumstances.
The ‘top’ of the scale is 10 and the ‘least’ is 1; so use between 0 and 11 to best describe how you
are feel about your life. Circle your response:
Question Description                                                             Scale (option)
7           Do you feel completely secure about the state of your health? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

8          Do you feel completely secure about being able to afford basic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
           necessities?

9          Do you feel worried about the state of your health?          1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10         Do you constantly worry about not being able to afford basic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
           necessities?
11         Do you have a life full of love, warm friendships and good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
           family relations?

12         Do you experience a life without friendship, love and warmth?       1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
13         Do you get complete recognition and respect from others?            1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
14         Are you usually completely ignored by others?                       1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
15         Are you satisfied that you are realizing the fullest potential of   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
           life?

16         Do you ever give up hope or feel that you would ever do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
           anything worthwhile in life?

17. In what section of the Force do you work?
         1. Operations                      [ ]
          2. Administration                 [ ]
          3. Crime                         [ ]

                                               379
4.   Intelligence             [ ]
5.   Other (please specify)   [ ]




                               380
18. How would you describe the present morale within the JCF?
          1. Very high                     [ ]
          2. High                          [ ]
          3. Average (Moderate)            [ ]
          4. low                           [ ]
          5. very low                      [ ]
19. In a typical month, how much of what you make in income is spent on food?
            1. Almost all                  [ ]
            2. Three quarters              [ ]
            3. One-half                    [ ]
            4. One-quarter                 [ ]
            5. None                        [ ]
20 In a typical month how much of what your earnings is spent on rent or mortgage?
            1. Almost all                  [ ]
            2. Three quarters              [ ]
            3. One-half                    [ ]
            4. One-quarter                 [ ]
            5. None                        [ ]
21. In general, how would you describe your present economic situation and that of your family?
          1. Very good                     [ ]
          2. Good                          [ ]
          3. Average                       [ ]
          4. Bad                           [ ]
          5. Very bad                      [ ]
                                                 Trust

22. Do you trust your mother?
    1. Always                               [    ]
    2. Sometimes                            [    ]
    3. Neutral                              [    ]
    4. Never                                [    ]
23. Do you trust your father?
    1. Always                               [    ]
    2. Sometimes                            [    ]
   3. Neutral                               [    ]
   4. Never                                 [    ]
24. Do you normally trust people?
    1. Always                       [   ]
    2. Sometimes                    [   ]
    3. Neutral                      [   ]
    4. Never                        [   ]
25. Do you trust yourself?
   1. Always                        [   ]
   2. Sometimes                     [   ]
   3. Neutral                       [   ]
   4. Never                         [   ]

                                                381
26. Generally do you trust other police officers?
    1. Always                         [ ]
    2. Sometimes                      [ ]
    3. Neutral                        [ ]
    4. Never                          [ ]

26b. Generally do you trust:
Question Description            Option
1         Rank and file officer Always [ ] Sometimes [ ] Neutral [ ] Never [ ]
2         Officer corps         Always [ ] Sometimes [ ] Neutral [ ] Never [ ]


Question 27. Now I am going to read a number of situations and I would like you to give a
value that best reflects how you truly feel about your present life circumstances.
The ‘top’ of the scale is 10 and the ‘least’ is 1; so use between 0 and 11 to best describe how you
are feel about each situation. Circle your response:

Question        Description                                                    Scale (option)
27.1            NIB Kingfish                                                   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
27.2            B.S.I.                                                         1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
27.3            PSB                                                            1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
27.4            CIB                                                            1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
27.5            Regular (please specify)                                       1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

28. How would you rate the trust in the Force?
        1. Very high                        [       ]
        2. High                             [       ]
        3. Average                          [       ]
        4. Low                              [       ]
        5. Very low                         [       ]

29. Would you change your job as a police because of lack of low trust within?
       1. Yes                              [ ]
       2. No                               [ ]

30. What is your level of fear reporting an act of misconduct against your colleague?

       1.   Very high                        [      ]
       2.   High                             [      ]
       3.   Average                          [      ]
       4.   Low                              [      ]
       5.   Very low                         [      ]




                                                 382
31. What is your level of fear reporting an act of corruption against your colleague?
      1. Very high                            [ ]
      2. High                                 [ ]
      3. Average                              [ ]
      4. Low                                  [ ]
      5. Very low                             [ ]

32. Do you think that trust affects job performance?
           1. Yes                             [ ]
           2. No                              [ ]
           3. Not sure                        [ ]
33. Are you comfortable going on daily patrol with your colleague?
         1. Always                            [ ]
         2. sometimes                         [ ]
         3. neutral                           [ ]
         4. never                             [ ]
34. If you were a team leader, would you trust a team member to convey or transport exhibits
     such as large amount of drugs or cash to the exhibit store or the forensic lab on your
     behalf?
         1. Yes                               [ ]
         2. No                                [ ]
         3. Not sure                          [ ]
35. Would you attend court and give evidence against your colleague without    fear of being
     hurt?
             1. Yes                           [ ]
             2. No                            [ ]
             3. Not sure                      [ ]

36. Do you see the organization as a trustworthy one?
             1. Yes                           [ ]
             2. No                            [ ]
             3. maybe                         [ ]
37. What is your vision of the force in the next 15 years?”
             1. Same level                    [ ]
             2. Better                                [ ]
             3. Much better                   [ ]
             4. Worse                         [ ]




                                               383
Question 38 to 43. Now I am going to read a number of situations and I would like you to give
a value that best reflects how you truly feel about your present life circumstances.
The ‘top’ of the scale is 10 and the ‘least’ is 1; so use between 0 and 11 to best describe how you
are feel about each situation. Circle your response:

Question              Description                                            Scale (option)
38                    Do you think that the perception of corruption creates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
                      the lack of trust?
39                    Going on an operation, to what extent do you trust the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
                      police?

40                    Would you trust your colleagues with sensitive            1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
                      information?
41                    How do you trust the present hierarchy of the force       1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
42                    What is your level of trust in the Police Federation?     1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
43                    What is your level of trust in the Police Officers        1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
                      Association?




Demographic Characteristic of Sample



44. What is your sex?                                      Male     [ ]         Female        [ ]

45. To which age group do you belong?      18-25 [    ] 26-35 [ ] 36-45 [     ] 46-55 [ ] 56 [ ]

46 In which parish do you live? (Specify) ___________________________________________




                                               384
                                                                                           Chapter


                                                                                                  9




Religiosity and its association with Subjective Psychological Wellbeing of Jamaicans: Years of
schooling, race, social class, and gender differences



       Introduction



       The concept of health according to the WHO is multifaceted. “Health is state of complete

physical, mental and social well, and not merely being the absence of disease or infirmity”

(Whang, 2005, 153). From the WHO’s perspective, health status is an indicator of wellbeing

(See also, Crisp, 2005). Thus, wellbeing according to some scholars, therefore, is a state of

happiness that is a positive status of life satisfactions (see for example, Easterlin, 2003; Diener,

Larson, Levine, & Emmons, 1985; Diener, 1984) satisfaction of preferences or desires, health or

prosperity of an individual (Diener & Suh, 1997; Jones, 2001; Crips, 2005; Whang, 2005). Some

psychologists refer to this as positive affective conditions (Headey, & Wooden, 2004). Simply

put, wellbeing is subjectively what is ‘good’ for each person (See for example, Crisp, 2005). It

is sometimes connected with good health. Crisp offered an explanation for this, when he said

that “When discussing the notion of what makes life good for the individual living that life, it is

preferable to use the term ‘wellbeing’ instead of ‘happiness” (Crisp, 2005), which explains the

rationale for this project utilizing the term wellbeing and not good health. Some scholars argue

that religion provides a state of happiness, provide coping and stress apparatuses, contentment

and life satisfaction that is outside of any other experience. They have provided works that have


                                                385
shown that objective religiosity (i.e. church attendance) and subjective religiosity (i.e. self-report

of religiousness and receiving spiritual comfort from religion) affect psychological health (Fiori,

2006). Within the context that Jamaicans are highly religious, and a dearth of literature exists on

this and it influence on subjective psychological wellbeing (SWB), as a researcher I concern

about those variables among others. Thus, what are the delimitations of this study, and can I

examine the phenomenon forwarded earlier? One of the fundamental challenges (or drawbacks)

to this study is the use of secondary data, which means that variables are constricted by the

availability from the dataset. The CLG conducts a survey on a nationally representative sample

on the political culture of Jamaicans, and so it collects data on SWB, religiosity and certain

socioeconomic factors, which explains the why the current work is possible. As I am concerned

about religion’s role in predicting SWB of Jamaicans, again because of the high religiosity of its

people and whether or nor religion’s contribution’s to SWB is high in keeping with the

preponderance of churches in the island.; the research is timely, and it will provide answers to

some of questions raise on the issue of religion and SWB, but from a scientific perspective. In

order to address the question raise earlier, I will structure this paper firstly by evaluating the

composition of wellbeing, and then ascertain whether religion or religiosity can influence

wellbeing. After which, I will then examine data from a scientific standpoint in order to

ascertain if religiosity can be used to predict wellbeing along with other sociodemographic

variables.


                                         Conceptual Framework


       Wellbeing


       In order to forward an understanding of what constitutes wellbeing or ill being, a system


                                                 386
must be instituted that will allow us to coalesce a measure that will unearth peoples’ sense of

overall quality of life from either economic-welfarism (see Becker et al. 2004) or psychological

theories (Diener, Suh, & Oishi, 1997; Headey & Wooden, 2004; Kashdan, 2004; Diener, 2000).

This must be done with the general construct of a complex man. Economists like Smith &

Kington (1997), and Stutzer & Frey (2003) as well as Engel believe that state of man’s wellbeing

is not only influenced by his/her biologic state but that is always dependent on his/her

environment, economic and sociologic conditions. Some studies and academics have sought to

analyze this phenomenon within a subjective manner by way of general personal happiness, self-

rated wellbeing, positive moods and emotions, agony, hopelessness, depression, and other

psychosocial indicators (Arthaud-day et al., 2005; Diener et al., 1999; Skevington et al., 1997;

Diener ,1984).


       An economist (Easterlin) studying happiness and income, of all social scientist, found an

association between the two phenomena (Easterlin 2001a, 2001b), (see also Stutzer & Frey

2003). He began with a statement that “the relationship between happiness and income is

puzzling” (Easterlin 2001a, 465), and found people with higher incomes were happier than those

with lower incomes – he referred to as a correlation between subjective wellbeing and income

(see also, Stutzer & Frey, 2003, 8). He did not cease at this juncture, but sought to justify this

realty, when he said that “those with higher income will be better able to fulfill their aspiration

and, and other things being equal, on an average, feel better off” (Easterlin, 2001a, 472).

Wellbeing, therefore, can be explained outside of welfare theory and/or purely on objectification-

objective utility (See for example, Kimball & Willis, 2005; Stutzer & Frey, 2003).


       Whereas Easterlin found a bivariate relationship between subjective wellbeing and

income, Stutzer and Frey revealed that the association is a non-linear one. They concretized the

                                               387
position by offering an explanation that “In the data set for Germany, for example, the simple

correlation is 0.11 based on 12, 979 observations” (Stutzer & Frey ,2003, 9). Nevertheless, from

Stutzer and Frey’s findings, a position association does exist between subjective wellbeing and

income despite difference over linearity or non-linearity.


       The issue of wellbeing is embodied in three theories – (1) Hedonism, (2) Desire, and (3)

Objective List. Using ‘evaluative hedonism’, wellbeing constitutes the greatest balance of

pleasure over pain (See for example, Crisp, 2005; Whang, 2005, 154). With this theorizing,

wellbeing is just personal pleasantness, which represents that more pleasantries an individual

receives, he/she will be better off. The very construct of this methodology is the primary reason

for a criticism of its approach (i.e. ‘experience machine’), which gave rise to other theories.

Crisp (2005) using the work of Thomas Carlyle described the hedonistic structure of

utilitarianism as the ‘philosophy of swine’, because this concept assumes that all pleasure is on

par. He summarized this adequately by saying that “… whether they [are] the lowest animal

pleasures of sex or the highest of aesthetic appreciation” (Crisp 2005).


       The desire approach, on the other hand, is on a continuum of experienced desires. This

is popularized by welfare economics. As economists see wellbeing as constituting satisfaction of

preference or desires (Crisp, 2005, 7; Whang, 2005, 154), which makes for the ranking of

preferences and its assessment by way of money. People are made better off, if their current

desires are fulfilled. Despite this theory’s strengths, it has a fundamental shortcoming, the issue

of addiction. This forwarded by the possible addictive nature of consuming ‘hard drugs’ because

of the summative pleasure it gives to the recipient.


       Objective list theory: This approach in measuring wellbeing list items not merely


                                                388
because of pleasurable experiences nor on ‘desire-satisfaction’ but that every good thing should

be included such as knowledge and-or friendship. It is a concept influenced by Aristotle, and

“developed by Thomas Hurka (1993) as perfectionism” (Crisp, 2005).                  According to this

approach, the constituent of wellbeing is an environment of perfecting human nature. What goes

on an ‘objective list’ is based on reflective judgement or intuition of a person. A criticism of this

technique is elitism (Crisp, 2005). Since an assumption of this approach is that, certain things

are good for people. Crisp (2005) provided an excellent rationale for this limitation, when he

said that “…even if those people will not enjoy them, and do not even want them”.


        In Arthaud-day et al work, applying structural modeling, subjective well was found to

constitute “(1) cognitive evaluations of one's life (i.e., life satisfaction or happiness); (2) positive

affect; and (3) negative affect.”      Subjective wellbeing, therefore, is the individual’s own

viewpoint. If an individual feels his/her life is going well, then we need to accept this as the

person’s reality. One of drawbacks to this measurement is, it is not summative, and it lacks

generalizability.


        Studies have shown that subjective wellbeing can be measured on a community level

(Bobbit et al., 2005; Lau, 2005; Boelhouwer & Stoop, 1999) or on a household level (Lau, 2005;

Diener, 1984), whereas other experts have sought to use empiricism (biomedical indicators -

absence of disease symptoms, life expectancy; and an economic component - Gross Domestic

Product per capita; welfarism - utility function).


        Powell (1997) in a paper titled ‘Measures of quality of life and subjective wellbeing’

argued that psychological wellbeing is a component of quality of life. He believed that in this

measurement in particular for the older, must include Life Satisfaction Index, as this approach


                                                  389
constitutes a number of items based on “cognitively based attitudes toward life in general and

more emotion-based judgment” (Powell, 1997).         Powell addressed this from two-dimensions.

Where those means are relatively constant over time while in seeking to unearth changes in the

short-run, ‘for example an intervention’, procedures that mirror changed states may be

preferable. This can be assessed by way of a twenty-item Positive and Negative Affect Schedule

or from a ten-item Philadelphia Geriatric Centre Positive Affect and Negative Affect Scale

(Powell, 1997).


       In a reading titled ‘Objective measures of wellbeing and the cooperation production

problem’, Gaspart (1998) provided arguments that support the rational behind the objectification

of wellbeing. His premise for objective quality of life is embedded within the difficulty as it

relates to consistency of measurement when subjectivity is the construct of operationalization.

This approach takes precedence because an objective measurement of concept is of exactness as

non-objectification; therefore, the former receives priority over any subjective preferences. He

claimed that for wellbeing to be comparable across individuals, population and communities,

there is a need for empiricism.


       Gaspart discussed a number of economic theorizing (Equal Income Walrasian equilibria,

objective egalitarianism, Pareto efficiency; Wefarism), which saw the paper expounding on a

number of mathematical theorems in order to quantify quality of life. Such a stance proposes

that human predictable, rational from which we are able to objectify their plans. The very

axioms cited by Gaspart emphasized particular set of assumptions that he used finalizing a

measurement for wellbeing for man who is a complex social animal. The researcher points to a

sentence that was written by Gaspart that speaks to the difficulty of objective quality of life; he

wrote, “So its objectivism is already contaminated by post-welfarism, opening the door to a

                                               390
mixed approach, in which preferences matter as well as objective wellbeing” (Gaspart, 1998).

Another group of scholars emphasized the importance of measuring wellbeing outside a

welfarism and/or purely objectification, when they said that “Although GDP per capita is usually

used as a proxy for the quality of life in different countries, material gain is obviously only one

of many aspects of life that enhance economic wellbeing” (Becker et al., 2004, 1), and that

wellbeing depends on both the quality and the quantity of life lived by the individual (see also

Easterlin, 2001). This is affirmed in a study carried out by Lima & Nova (2006), that found

happiness, general life satisfaction, social acceptance and actualizations are all directed related to

GDP per capita for a geographic location (see Lima and Nova 2006, 9). Even though in Europe

these were found not to be causal, income provides some predictability of subjective wellbeing

more so in poor countries than in wealthy nations. (see Lima & Nova, 2006, 11)


       It should be understood that GDP per capita speaks of the market economic resources

which are produced domestically within a particular geographic space. So increased production

in goods and/or services may generate excess which can then be exported, and vital products

(such as vaccination, sanitary products, vitamins, iron and other commodities) can be purchased

that is able to improve the standard of living and quality of the life of the same people over the

previous period. One scholar (Caldwell, 1999) has shown that life expectancies are usually

higher in countries with high GDP per capita, which means that income is able to purchased

better quality products, which indirectly affects the length of years lived by people. This realty

could explain why in economic recession, war and violence, when the economic growth is lower

(or even non-existence) there is a lower life expectancy.          Some of the reasons for these

justifications are government’s unavailability to provide for an extensive population in the form

of nutritional care, public health and health-care services. Good health is, therefore, linked to


                                                 391
economic growth, which further justifies why economists use GDP per capita as an objective

valuation of standard of living; and why income should indefinitely be a component in the

analysis of health status. There is another twist to this discourse as a country’s GDP per capita

may be low, but the life expectancy is high because health care is free for the population.

Despite this fact, material living standards undoubtedly affect the health status and wellbeing of

a people, as well as the level of females’ educational attainment.


       Ringen (1995) in a paper titled ‘Wellbeing, measurement, and Preferences’ argued that

non-welfarist approaches to measuring wellbeing are possible despite its subjectivity. The direct

approach for wellbeing computation through the utility function according to Ringen is not a

better quantification as against the indirect method (i.e. using social indicators). The stance

taken was purely from the vantage point that utility is a function ‘not of goods and preferences’

but of products and ‘taste’. The constitution of wellbeing is based on choices. Choices are a

function of individual assets and options. With this premise, Ringen forwarded arguments which

show that people’s choices are sometimes ‘irrational’, which is the make for the departure from

empiricism.


       Wellbeing can be computed from either the direct (i.e. consumption expenditure) or the

indirect (i.e. disposable income) approach (Ringen, 1995, 8). The former is calculated using

consumption expenditure, whereas the latter uses disposable income. Rigen noted that in order

to use income as a proxy for wellbeing, we must assume that (1) income is the only resource, and

(2) all persons operate in identical market places. On the other hand, the direct approach has two

key assumptions. These are (1) what we can buy is what we can consume and (2) and that what

we can consume, is an expression of wellbeing. From Rigen’s monograph, the assumptions are

limitations.

                                                392
        In presenting potent arguments in favour of non-empiricism in the computation of

wellbeing, Ringen highlighted a number of drawbacks to welfarism. According to Ringen:


        Utility is not a particular good criterion for wellbeing since it is a function not only of
        circumstances and preferences, but also of expectation. In the measurement of wellbeing,
        respect for personal preferences is best sought in non-welfarist approaches that have the
        quality of preference neutrality; …As soon, as preferences are brought into the concept of
        wellbeing cannot but be subjective. (Ringen, 1995, 11)



        The difficulties in using empiricism to quantify wellbeing has not only be


Forwarded by Ringen as O’Donnell & Tait (2003) were equally forthwith in


arguing there were challenges in measuring quality of life quantitatively. O’Donnell and Tait

believed that health is a primary indicator of wellbeing. Hence, self-rated health status is a highly

reliable proxy of health which “successfully crosses cultural lines” (O’Donnell & Tait, 2003, 20).

They argued self-reported health status can be used as they found that all the respondents of

chronic diseases indicated that their health was very poor.


        To capture the state of the quality of life of humans, we are continuously and increasingly

seeking to ascertain more advance methods that will allow us to encapsulate a quantification of

wellbeing that is multidimensional and multifaceted (Pacione, 2003). Therefore, an operational

definition of wellbeing that sees the phenomenon on single dimension such as physical health

(Steward and King 1994), medical perspective (Farquhar, 1995), material (Lipsey, 1999) and

would have excluded indicators such as crime, education, leisure facilities, housing, social

exclusion and the environment (Pacione, 2003; Campbell et al., 1976) as well as subjective

indicators cannot be an acceptable holistic measurement of this construct. This suggests that

wellbeing is simply not a single space; and so, the traditional biomedical conceptual definitions

                                                 393
of wellbeing exclude many individual satisfactions and in the process reduce the tenets of a

superior coverage of quality of life.


         One writer noted that the environment positively influenced the quality of life (Pacione,

2003, 20) of peoples; in order to establish validity and reliability of wellbeing, empirical data

must include issues relating to the environment. The quality of the environment is a utilized

condition in explaining elements of quality of life of people. Air and water quality through

industrial fumes, toxic waste, gases and other pollutants affect environmental quality. This

directly related to maintenance or lack thereof of societal and personal wellbeing (Pacione,

2003).


         Studies have conclusively shown that environmental issues such as industrial fumes and

gases, poor solid waste management, mosquito infestation and poor housing are likely to result in

physiological conditions like respiratory track infections (for example lung infection), asthma.


         According to Langlois & Anderson (2002), approximately 30 years ago, a seminal studies

conducted by Smith (1973, 2) “proposed that wellbeing be used to refer to conditions that apply

to a population generally, while quality of life should be limited to individuals’ subjective

assessments of their lives …” They argue that a distinction between the two variables have been

lost with time. From Langlois & Anderson’s monograph, during the 1960s and 1970s, wellbeing

was approached from a quantitative assessment by the use of GDP or GNP (also See, Becker,

Philipson & Soares, 2004), and unemployment rates; this they refer to as a “rigid approach to the

[enquiry of the subject matter] subject”.      According to Langlois & Anderson (2002), the

positivism approach to the methodology of wellbeing was objectification, an assessment that was

highly favoured by Andrews & Withley, 1976 and Campbell et al 1976.


                                                394
          In measuring quality of life, some writers have thought it fitting to use Gross Domestic

Product per capita (i.e. GDP per capita) to which they referred to as standard of living (Lipsey,

1999; Summers & Heston, 1995; Hanson, 1986). According to Summers & Heston (1995), “The

index most commonly used until now to compare countries' material wellbeing is their GDP

POP' .”   The United Nations Development Programme has expanded on the material wellbeing

definition forwarded primarily by economists, and has included life expectancy and educational

attainment (Human Development Reports, 2005, p. 341) and other social indicators (Diener,

1984; Diener & Suh, 1997). This operational definition of wellbeing has become increasingly

popular in the last twenty-five years, but given the expanded definition of health as cited by the

WHO, wellbeing must be measured in a more comprehensive manner than using material

wellbeing as seen by economists.


          Despite the fact that quality of life extends beyond the number of years of schooling and

material wellbeing, generally wellbeing is substantially construed as economic phenomenon.

Embedded within this construct of a measure is the emphasis on economic resources, and we

have already establish that man’s wellbeing is multifaceted. Hence, any definition of the quality

of life of people cannot just simply analyze spending or the creation of goods and/or services that

are economically exchangeable, number of years of schooling and life expectancy but this must

include the psychosocial conditions of the people within their natural environment.


          GDP is the coalesced sum of all economic resources of people in certain topography, so

this does not capture the psychosocial state of the man in attaining the valued GDP. By this

approach, we may arrive at a value that is higher than in previous periods, making it seem as

though people are doing very well. However, with this increase in GDP, this single component is

insufficient to determine wellbeing. As the increase in GDP may be by (1) more working hours,

                                                 395
(2) higher rates of pollutions and environmental conditions, (3) psychological fatigue, (4) social

exclusion, (5) human ‘burn out’, (6) reduction in freedom, (7) unhappiness, (8) chronic and acute

diseases and so forth. Summers & Heston (1995) note that “However, GDP POP is an inadequate

measure of countries' immediate material wellbeing, even apart from the general practical and

conceptual problems of measuring countries' national outputs.” Generally, from that perspective,

the measurement of quality of life is, therefore, highly economic and excludes the psychosocial

factors, and if quality of life extends beyond monetary objectification.


       In developing countries, Camfield (2003) in looking at wellbeing from a subjective

vantage point notes that Diener (1984) argues that subjective wellbeing constitute the existence

of positive emotions and the absence of negative ones within a space of general satisfaction with

life. According to Camfield, Cummins’ (1997) perspective subsumed ‘subjective and objective

measures of material wellbeing’ along with the absence of illnesses, efficiency, social closeness,

security, place in community, and emotional wellbeing, which implies that “life’s satisfaction”

comprehensively envelopes subjective wellbeing.


       Diener (2000) in an article titled ‘Subjective Wellbeing: The Science of Happiness and a

Proposal for a National Index’ theorizes that the objectification of wellbeing is embodied within

satisfaction of life. His points to a construct of wellbeing called happiness.


       He cited that:


       People's moods and emotions reflect on-line reactions to events happening to them. Each
       individual also makes broader judgments about his or her life as a whole, as well as about
       domains such as marriage and work. Thus, there are a number of separable components
       of SWB [subjective wellbeing]: life satisfaction (global judgments of one's life),
       satisfaction with important domains (e.g., work satisfaction), positive affect
       (experiencing many pleasant emotions and moods), and low levels of negative affect
       (experiencing few unpleasant emotions and moods). In the early research on SWB,
                                                396
       researchers studying the facets of happiness usually relied on only a single self-report
       item to measure each construct (Diener, 2000, 34).




       Diener’s theorizing on wellbeing encapsulates more than the marginalized stance of other

academics and researchers who enlightened the discourse with economic, psychosocial, or

subjective indicators. He shows that quality of life is multifaceted and coalescing economic,

social, psychological and subjective indicators is far more reaching in ultimately measuring

wellbeing. This work shows a construct that can be used to operationalize a more

multidimensional variable, wellbeing, which widens the tenet of previous operational definition

on the subject.      From the theorizing of various writers, it is clear that wellbeing is

multidimensional, multidisciplinary and multispatial. Some writers emphasize the environmental

components of subject matter (Lui, 1976; Pacione, 1984; Smith ,1973), psychosocial aspect

(Clarke & Ryff, 2000) and from a social capital vantage point (Glaeser, 2001; Putnam, 1995;

Woolcock, 2001).


       According to Smith & Kington (1997), using H t = f (H t-1 , P m G o , Bt , MC t ED, Ā t , ) to

conceptualize a theoretical framework for “stock of health” noted that health in period t, Ht, is

the result of health preceding this period (H t-1) , medical care (MC t) , good personal health (G o) ,

the price of medical care (P m ), and bad ones (Bt) , and a vector of family education (ED), and all

sources of household income (Ā t ). Embedded in this function is the wellbeing that individual

enjoys (or not enjoys) (see Smith and Kington 1997, 159-160).


       In seeking to operationalize wellbeing, the United Nations Development Programme

(UNDP) in the Human Development Reports (1997, 2000) conceptualized human development

as a “process of widening people’s choice as well as the level of achieve wellbeing”. Embedded

                                                 397
within this definition is the emphasis of materialism in interpreting quality of life. From the

UNDP’s Human Development (1993), the human development index (HDI) “…is a normative

measure of a desirable standard of living or a measure of the level of living”, which speaks to the

subjectivity of this valuation irrespective of the inclusion of welfarism (i.e. gross domestic

product (GDP) per capita). The HDI constitute adjusted educational achievement (E= a 1 *

literacy + a 2 * years of schooling, where a1, = 2/3 and a2 = 1/3), life expectancy (demographic
                                                      1-e
modeling) and income (W (9y) = 1/ (1 - e) * y           ). The function W(y) denotes “utility or

wellbeing derived from income”. This income component of the HDI is a national average (i.e.

GDP per capita, which is them adjusted for income distribution (W*(y) = W(y) {1 - G}), where

G = Gini coefficient). In wanting to disaggregate the HDI within a country, the UNDP (1993)

noted that data are not available for many countries, which limits the possibility.


       An economist writing on ‘objective wellbeing’ summarized the matter simply by stating

that “…one can adopt a mixed approach, in which the satisfaction of subjective preferences is

taken as valuable too” (Gaspart, 1998, 111) (see also Cummin1997a, 2001), which is the premise

upon which this paper will adhere in keeping with this multidimensional construct, wellbeing.

Wellbeing, therefore, for this paper will be the an individuals’ assessment of his/her past, current,

future psychosocial state of life.


       A study called SABE project conducted in Barbados in 2005 by Hambleton et al. found

that 38.2% of the variation in quality of life of aged Barbadians (ages 60 or over) is explained the

model of determinants. Those factors include lifestyle behaviours (exercise, conditions relating

to smoking or non-smoking), historical conditions (such as, socioeconomic experiences early in

life), diseases, and current socioeconomic conditions (e.g. education of the family members,

household room density, all sources of income – including pensions and retirements, social

                                                398
networks). Furthermore, Stum et al.’s research that precedes the SABE’s project also show that

only 29% of the variance of selected predisposing and resource characteristics of individuals can

be used to explain the economic wellbeing of people ages 65 years or over. Thus, this study is in

keeping with what exist in Barbados and America, and so is a platform upon which further

investigations should be launched, with the inclusion all other germane factors that were omitted

in these two works.




       Religion and Religiosity



              Cast thy burden upon the LORD, and he shall sustain thee; he shall
       never suffer the righteous to be moved (Psalm 55 vs. 22)



       Embedded within the Psalm is an acceptance that a practitioner of religion, who serves

the LORD, can off load his/her troubles on God. This state of burden offloading will not only

transform the psychological state of the individual but will also impact on the life satisfaction,

coping and burden level as the person is able to create a different psychological state of mind

through this very channel. This begs the question, is this scientific, what role does religion plays

in the subjective psychological wellbeing (SWB), and what is its degree?




       From theologians’ perspective, spirituality and religiosity are critical components in the

lifespan of people. They believe that man (including woman) cannot be whole without religion.

With this fundamental concept, theologians theorize that man cannot be happy, lowly depressed

or feel comfortable without a balance of spirit and body (Whang, 2006). In order to acquire a

state of personal happiness, self-reported subjective wellbeing, some pundits forward a construct
                                                399
that people are fashioned in the image of God, which requires some religiosity before man, can

be happy or less stressed. Religion is, therefore, association with wellbeing (Dierendonck &

Mohan, 2006; Krause, 2006; Moody, 2006: Jurkovic & Walker, 2006; Ardelt, 2003; Graham et

al., 1978; Zuckerman et al., 1984) as well as low mortality (Schonenbach et al., 1986; House,

Robbin & Metzner, 1982).         Religion is seen as the opiate of the people from Karl Marx

perspective but Theologians, on the other hand, hypothesized that religion is a coping

mechanism against unhappiness and stress. According to one scholar, Kart (1990), religious

guidelines aid wellbeing in that through restrictive behavioural habits which are health risk such

smoking, drinking of alcohol, and even diet.


       The discourse of religiosity and spirituality influencing wellbeing is well-documented

(Frazier et al., 2005; Edmondson et al., 2005; Thorson et al., 2001; Moberg, 1984; Graham et al.,

1978). Researchers have sought to concretize this issue by studying the influence of religiosity

on quality and life, and they have found that a positive associate exist between those two

phenomena (Maskelko & Kubzansky, 2006; Franzini et al., 2004).             They found that the

relationship was even stronger for men than for women, and that this association was influenced

by denominational affiliation.     Graham et al’s (Graham, et al 1978) study found that blood

pressure for highly religious male heads of households in Evan County was low. The findings of

this research did not dissipate when controlled for age, obesity, cigarette smoking, and

socioeconomic status. A study on the Mormon in Utah revealed that cancer rates were lower (by

80%) for those who adhere to Church doctrine (Gardner & Lyon, 1982a, 1982b) than those with

weaker adherence.


       In a study of 147 volunteer Australian males between 18 and 83 years old, Jurkovic &

Walker (2006) study found a high stress level of non-religious than compared to religious men.

                                               400
The researchers in constructing a contextual literature quoted many studies that have made a link

between non-spirituality and “dryness”, which results in suicide. Even though, Jurkovic &

Walker’s research was primarily on spiritual wellbeing, it provides a platform that can be used in

understanding linkages between psychological status of people and their general wellbeing. In a

study which looked at young adult women, the researchers found that spirituality affects the

physical wellbeing of its populace (Edmondson et al., 2005). Embedded within that study is the

positive influence of spirituality and religion on the health status of women. Edmondson’s et al.

work constituted of 42 female college students of which 78.8 percent were Caucasian, 13.5

percent African-American, 5.8 percent Asian and 92 percent were non-smokers.


       Health psychologists concurred with Theologians and Christians that religion influence

psychological wellbeing (Taylor, 1999; Rice, 1998; Paloutzian & Kirkpatrick, 1995). Taylor

argued that religious people are more likely to cope with stressors than non-religious individuals,

which explains the former better health status. She forwarded the position that this may be done

through avoidance or vigilant strategies. This response is an aversive coping mechanism in

addressing serious monologue or confrontational and traumatic events.           Coping strategies,

therefore, are psychological tools used by an individual to problem-solve issues, without which

are likely to construct stressors and threaten ones health status. Taylor (1999, 214) said that

"some religious beliefs also lead to better health practices" which see lower cancer mortality

rates from all cancers in Orthodox Christians.


       Stressors may arise from within the individual or outside his/her environment. One such

external stressor that may affect the individual is the death of love ones. Response to mortality of

close family members may be more traumatic dependent on expectancy or non-expectancy.

Bereavement influences incidence of mortality (see for example Lusyne Page & Lievens, 2001;

                                                 401
Rice 1998). This may result in exhaustion of the individual's 'adaptive reserve'. The person body

wears down and becomes highly vulnerable to morbidity and even death. Rice forwarded a study

(by Levav, Friedlander, Kark, & Peritz, 1995) that contradicted an association between

bereavement and mortality. He wrote that "Fathers who lost sons in war had lower mortality

rates than those who lost son in accidents" (Rice 1998, 76). Despite that study, Rice quoted

other research (Baker, 1987; Jemmott & Locke, 1984) that showed the impact of stress on

physiology of humans. He argued that it is through suppression after and during bereavement

that creates the stressors, which become potent devices for mortality and morbidity. Lusyne,

Page & Lievens’ (2001) study find that there is an association between bereavement and

mortality, but that this is more likely to occur with the short-run (i.e. the first 6-month of the

death of the spouse). As there are a number of confounding situations which in the long-run

could offset the likeliness of mortality, such as remarriage, social support from other family

members, grandchildren and so on. Nevertheless, Lusyne, Page & Lievens affirm with other

studies that the loss of a long-time partner may result in the death of the living-spouse. The

explanations given for this eventuality are – (i) role theory as the lived-partner may find the role

fitted by the other partner too stressful and so (ii) may not be able to adapt to the new role alone-

and that this is more a male phenomenon (Lusyne, Page & Lievens, 2001, 287).


       According to Moody (2006), “Empirical data show that religious belief is correlated with

good health”, and this ethos according to some writers is not limited to Christian scholars or

spiritualists. According to Moody (2006), Koenig and Cohen forwarded a stance that was

dialectic in nature. They believed that religiosity was both a positive as well as a negative

determinant on health in particular ‘life span’ (Moody, 2006 p. 148).


       Cox & Hammonds (1988) found that there is a positive relationship between religiosity

                                                402
and wellbeing of the elderly; this was also concurred by Edward and Klemmack (1973),

Hummer et al. (1999) and Spreitzer and Synder (1974) in separate studies on the same space.

Cox and Hammonds in their abstract, they forwarded the perspective that all past studies that

have analyses religiosity and life satisfaction came to the same conclusion that individuals who

attend church experience a greater life satisfaction. They forwarded the justification for the

association. The researcher cited that:


        A plausible explanation for the positive value that religious participation has on the lives
        of the elderly is that the church becomes a focal point of social integration and activity
        for the elderly, providing them with a sense of community and wellbeing (Cox &
        Hammonds, 1988).



       According to Cox & Hammonds (1988), Guy in a study on the discourse of religiosity

and life satisfaction, found that the group with the highest score on the measure of life

satisfaction was that which reported the most frequent church attendance. Other research on the

same space agreed with Guy, and Cox & Hammonds that religiosity was a determinant of life

satisfaction experienced by the elderly (Markides1,983). Cox and Hammonds stated that this

space in the discipline of gerontology has a high degree of scientific bias, as scientists are less

likely to reflect the secular attitudes of the public. In addition to the few longitudinal studies on

matter, Cox and Hammonds argued that all the interpretation of the results and conclusion must

be used cautiously (1988, 47).


       According to Hummer et al. (1999), several studies have concluded that religion

influences health, mortality and that the relationship varies across socio-demographic factors.

They referred to studies carried out by Levin et al. (1994), Bryant & Ralowski (1992) and House

et al. (1982); as those works have added to the space.


                                                403
       In a study conducted by Frazier et al. (2005) exclusively on African American older

people, they found that several multidimensional measures of religiosity were associated with

psychological wellbeing. Kail and Cavanaugh (2004, 584) captured the experiences of seniors

and how religion enhances their survivability, when they said that "...older adults who are more

involved and committed to their faith have better physical and mental health ..." When asked

'how you deal with the living', respondents listed among coping strategies spirituality (Kail &

Cavanaugh, 2004). From studies, analyzed earlier, spiritual support is a mechanism used in

coping with life's challenges as the church offers a social support system and this is a mantle of

hope. Religiosity is a determinant of the health status of people more so for seniors as they

continue to grapple with lose of spouse, work and other psychosocial and biological conditions.


       From the Census of 2001, approximately 21 percent of Jamaican reported that they had

‘no religion’ and 2.78 percent did not report, then the discourse on influence of religiosity on the

quality of life of the aged should provide an in-depth understanding of this phenomenon as a

predictor.


       Psychological – Positive and Negative conditions



       In the pursuit of a precise operational definition of subjective wellbeing, some scholars

(see for example, Kashan, 2003; Diener, 2000; Lyubomirsky, 2001) categorized the phenomenon

into positive and negative psychological conditions. They believed that happiness is as a result

of a number of positive psychological factors (see also Easterlin, 2003). A few scholars (see for

example Liang, 1984, 1985; Diener & Emmons, 1984) have a sought to make a distinction

between the two phenomena.




                                                404
       In seeking to unearth ‘why some people are happier’ Lyubomirsky (2001) approached

this study from the perspective of positive psychology. She noted that, to comprehend disparity

in self-reported happiness between individuals, “one must understand the cognitive and

motivational process that serves to maintain, and even enhance happiness and transient mood’

(Lyubomirsky, 2001, 239). Using positive psychology, Lyumbomirsky identified ‘comfortable

income’, ‘robust health’, supportive marriage’, and ‘lack of tragedy’ or ‘trauma’ in the lives of

people as factors that distinguish happy from unhappy people, which was discovered in a study

by Diener, Suh, Lucas & Smith (1999). A study by Diener, Horwitz & Emmon (1985) was able

to add value to the discourse of income and subjective wellbeing. They found that the wealth-

affluent’s (those earning in excess of US 10-million, annually) self-reported wellbeing (personal

happiness) was marginally more than that of the lower wealthy.


       People’s cognitive responses to ordinary and extraordinary situational events in live are

associated with different typology of wellbeing (Lyumbomirsky, 2001). It is found that happier

people are more optimistic and as such conceptualize life’s experiences in a positive manner

(DeNeve & Cooper, 1998).


       Studies revealed that positive moods and emotions is associated with wellbeing (Leung et

al. 2005) as the individual is able to think, feel and act in ways that foster resource building and

involvement with particular goal materialization (Lyumbomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005). This

situation is later internalized, causing the individual to be self-confident from which follows a

series of positive attitudes that guides further actions (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006). Positive

mood is not limited to active responses by individual, but a study showed that “counting one’s

blessings,” “committing acts of kindness”, recognizing and using signature strengths,

“remembering oneself at one’s best”, and “working on personal goals” are all positively

                                                405
influence wellbeing (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006; Abbe et al., 2003). Happiness is not a

mood that does not change with time or situation; hence, happy people can experience negative

moods (Diener and Seligman, 2002).


       Human emotions are the coalesced of not only positive conditions but also negative

factors (Watson et al., 1999). Hence, depression, anxiety, neuroticism and pessimism are seen as

a measure of the negative psychological conditions that affect subjective wellbeing (Evans et al.,

2005; Harris et al., 2005; Kashdan, 2004).       From Evans and colleague, Harris et al. and

Kashdon’s monographs, negative psychological conditions affect subjective wellbeing in a

negative manner (i.e. guilt, fear, anger, disgust); and that the positive factors influence self-

reported wellbeing in a direct way– this was concurred in a study conducted by Fromson (2006);

and by other scholars (McCullough et al., 2001; Watson & Clark et al, 1988a, 1988b). Acton

and Zodda (2005) aptly summarized the negative affective of subjective wellbeing in the

sentence that says “expressed emotion is detrimental to the patient's recovery; it has a high

correlation with relapse to many psychiatric disorders.”


       Method


       Design and Sample


       The CLGS (Centre for Leadership and Governance Survey) is a national survey that was

conducted by the Centre of Leadership and Governance that is within the Department of

Government, University of the West Indies, Mona-Jamaica between July and August 2006. It is

a descriptive cross-sectional study, which collect data from noninstitutionalized Jamaicans on

their political culture in addition to their perceived psychological state. The sample was selected

from the fourteen parishes of Jamaica using a multistage area probability sampling approach.


                                               406
Each parish was called a cluster, and each cluster was further classified into urban and rural

zones, male and female, and social class. The final sample was then equally randomly selected

from the 14 clusters. It has a sample population of 1,338 respondents, with a sampling error of

approximately ± 3%, at the 95% confidence level (i.e. CI). Face-to-face interviews were used to

collect the data on an instrument, which took about 90 minutes. The overall response rate was

approximately 95%. The results that are presented here are based solely on Jamaicans’ opinion

of their political orientation. Descriptive statistics will be used to analyze the data.




        Measures



Age. The length of time that one has existed; a time in life that is based on the number of years
lived; duration of life. For this study age begins from the chronological age of 16 years or over



Subjective psychological well-being (SWB). This is the self-reported psychological state of an
individual, which include- state of health, feel secure about being able to afford necessities, love,
warm, friendship, self-esteem, and self-actualization (see Kashdan 2003). The Cronbach alpha
for the five-item scale is 0.841 (or α = 84%). The index is constituted by summation the mean of
five Likert scale variable ranging from 0 to 10.



                                               5

    NB: subjective wellbeing = Σ Li, where i ranges from 0 to 10. …………….. (1)

                                 i=1

    The least score is 0 and the maximum score is 10.

Gender. A social construct and learned characteristics that identifies the socio-cultural.
prescribed roles that men and women are expected to follow. This will be a binary variable,
where 1 denotes female and 0, otherwise.



                                                   407
Educational level. The total number of years of schooling, (including apprenticeship and/or the
completion of particular typology of school) that an individual completes within the formal
educational system. This is a non-binary variable, where 0 represents primary and below
education, 1denotes secondary, 2 indicates vocational or skills training, 3 equates to tertiary
(BSc. MSc, etc), and 4 means professional training.

Objective Religiosity (i.e. Religiosity). This is extent to which an individual practices (or
expresses) his/her religious belief in a supernatural entity, which is measured by church
attendance. It is hierarchically structured, and is based on the frequency or the lack thereof. This
is a non-binary variable, which ranges from 0 to 7 – where 0 denotes never attending a church
service in one’s life and higher scores indicates more frequently to maximum being ‘more than
once per week’.



Perceived ethnic background (Race or ethnicity). This is people’s perception of their ethnic
(i.e. racial) composition or background. It is a binary variable which will be investigated as (i)
1=white, 0=otherwise; (ii) 1=black (excluding brown or mixed), 0=otherwise or (iii) 1=black
(including brown or mixed), 0=otherwise.




Self-reported social class. This construct represents people’s perception of their social standing
in society. It is a non-binary variables, where 1 denotes working (lower) class, 2 equate to
middle class and 3 indicate the upper class.




       Findings



       The overall response rate for this survey was 96.9% (n=1,297). Of which, 55.7% are

females (n=723) compared to 44.3% males (n=574). The average age is 34 years and 11 months

± 13 years and 6-month, Range: 69 years. The majority of the sampled population are middle

age people- [ages 26 to 59 years] - 60.5% (n=810), with 33.3% (n=445) being youth (ages less

than 26 years) compared to 6.2% (n=83) who are elderly (ages 60 and older). A preponderance


                                                408
of the respondents (59.0%, n=766) perceived themselves to be of the working class (lower class),

36.6% (476) of the middle class compared to 4.4% (n=57) who see themselves as upper class

Jamaicans (see Table 1.1.1). When the respondents were asked to state their ethnic background,

the majority (76.7%, n=1023) say Africans (or Blacks excluding mixed), 13.4% (n=178) remark

Mixed, 0.8% (n=106) indicate Europeans (or Caucasians or Whites) compared to 0.2% (n=26)

who report Other ethnicity. On the matter of educational attainment, most of the respondents

(50.6%, n=653) say they have obtained a secondary level education, 22.5% (n=291) a tertiary

level education, 18.5% (n=239) a vocational training or skill, 3.7% (n=48) professional level

training which goes beyond tertiary (eg. ACCA, CAT etc.) compared to 4.6% (n=60) who have

either no formal education or at most up to grade 6 level education (i.e. primary or preparatory

level). (see Table 1.1.1, below)




                                              409
Table 1.1.1: Socio-demographic characteristics (or background data)

                                                                             Count (Percent)

Gender
         Male                                                           574 (44.3%)
         Female                                                         723 (55.7%)

Age                                                             mean age is 34.95 yrs.
                                                                  mode age is 19 yrs.
                                                                        SD 13.6 yrs.
Educational level
   Primary level and below (no formal to – 6 yrs)                      60 (4.6%)
   Secondary (include all age grades 7 to 9 yrs.)                      653 (50.6%)
   Vocational (skills training)                                        239 (18.5%)
   Tertiary (include colleges, university – MSc. & BSc).               291 (22.5%)
   Professional (Post University education)                            48 (3.7%)

Subjective Social Class
       Working class                                                    766 (59.0%)
       Middle class                                                     476 (36.6%)
       Upper class                                                       57 (4.4%)
Ethnic background
       African, Black                                                   1023 (76.7%)
       Mixed (Brown)                                                     178 (13.4%)
       European, white                                                    106 (0.8%)
       Other                                                               26 (2.0%)

Religiosity
    Never                                                                 53 (4.0%)
    Less than once per year                                                72 (5.5%)
   Once or twice per year                                                161 (12.3%)
   Several times per year                                                266 (20.3%)
   Once per month                                                         103 (7.9%)
   Once per fortnight                                                      69 (5.3%)
   Once per week                                                         249 (19.0%)
   More than once per week                                               339 (25.8%)

Subjective wellbeing                                                   mean is 6.85.
                                                                       mode is 7.8.
                                                                       median is 7
                                                                        SD 1.73.




                                            410
          The levels of religiosity of the sampled respondents are diverse with miniature majority

(25.8%, n=339) being highly religious (attend services ‘more than once per week’), with 20.3%

(n=266) attending ‘several times per years’, 19.0% (n=249) ‘once per week’, 12.3% (n=161)

‘once or twice per year’, 7.9% (n=103) ‘once per month’, 5.5% (n=72) ‘less than once per year’

compared to 4.0% (n=53) who indicate ‘never’. (see Table 1.1.1, above).


          The general subjective wellbeing of Jamaicans is high, using the mean score of the index

is 6.85 (out of 10) ± 2, with a mode of 7.8, a median of 7 and a range of 10. (see Table 1.1.1,

above).


                                                     Types of employment status


                                         Unemployable

                                             Students
                   Tyoes of employment




                                          Housewives

                                              Retirees

                                          Unemployed

                                         Self-employed

                                             Part-time

                                              Full-time

                                                      0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%
                                                                      Percentage


              Figure 1.1.1: Types of employment status

                                                                411
       With regard to employment status, a substantial majority (40.3%, n=535) of the

respondents are full-time employees, 19.0% (n=252) are self-employed, with 14.8% (n=197)

being part-time workers, 12.3% (n=164) are unemployed (or without work), 3.2% (n=43) are

retirees, 8.6% (n=114) are students, 1.6% (n=21) being housewives and 0.2% are unemployable

because of illnesses and/or disabilities.




Levels of Religiosity by gender of respondents




Generally, females indicate high levels of religiosity than males (means: females 4.8 out of 10 ±

2.1, Range: 7; males 3.9 out of 10 ± 2.2, Range: 7). Furthermore, on an average (using the mode)

female attend church services ‘more than once per week’ compared to their male counterparts

who visit ‘several times per year’. The overall response rate for this is 94.9% (n=1271), with a

response rate for females being 98.6% (n=713) and that of the males being 97.2% (n=558). (See

Tables 1.1.2 and 1.1.3)




                                              412
Table 1.1.2: Level of Religiosity by female



 Description                              Frequency         Percent (%)

          Never                                        18                   2.5

          Less than once per year                      22                   3.1

Valid     Once or twice per year                       65                   9.1

          Several times per year                      149                  20.9

          Once per month                               49                   6.9

          Once per fortnight                           42                   5.9

          Once per week                               147                  20.6

          More than once per week                     221                  31.0

          Total                                       713                 100.0




                                              413
Table 1.1.3: Levels of religiosity by male



 Description                                 Frequency              Percent (%)

           Never                                          30                         5.4

 Valid     Less than once per year                        48                         8.6

           Once or twice per year                         91                        16.3

           Several times per year                        113                        20.3

           Once per month                                 53                         9.5

           Once per fortnight                             25                         4.5

           Once per week                                  90                        16.1

           More than once per week                       108                        19.4

           Total
                                                         558                      100.0




Levels of Religiosity by subjective social class of respondents



Generally, those who classify themselves within the upper class marginally on an average attend

church more than those who are in working class and the same as those in the middle class;

upper class – approximately ‘once per week”, and the lower class – ‘several times per year’.

Further desegregation of the classes reveal that substantially more middle and upper classes have

never attended church (9.1%, n=5) compared to the working class (3.2%, n=24). [See Tables

1.1.4 to 1.1.6, below].


Table 1.1.4: Religiosity of the Working class

                                                414
                                  Frequency         Percent (%)

Valid   Never                                  24                   3.2

        Less than once per year                41                   5.5

        Once or twice per year                113                  15.0

        Several times per year                156                  20.8

        Once per month                         59                   7.9

        Once per fortnight                     38                   5.1

        Once per week                         128                  17.0

        More than once per week               192                  25.6

        Total                                 751                 100.0




                                   415
Table 1.1.5: Religiosity of the Middle class



                                               Frequency        Percent (%)

          Never                                            5                    9.1

Valid     Less than once per year                          3                    5.5

          Once or twice per year                           2                    3.6

          Several times per year                           9                   16.4

          Once per month                                   5                    9.1

          Once per fortnight                               3                    5.5

          Once per week                                    10                  18.2

          More than once per week
                                                           18                  32.7


          Total                                            55                 100.0




                                                416
Table 1.1.6: Religiosity of the Upper class



                                     Frequency                  Percent (%)

          Never                                     5                             9.1

          Less than once per
                                                    3                             5.5
          year

          Once or twice per
                                                    2                             3.6
          year
Valid
          Several times per
                                                    9                            16.4
          year

          Once per month                            5                             9.1

          Once per fortnight                        3                             5.5

          Once per week                             10                           18.2

          More than once per
          week
                                                    18                           32.7



          Total                                     55                          100.0



Levels of Religiosity by age grouping of respondents




Participants who are classified as elderly (60+ years) indicate the highest level of religiosity

(mean 5.6 ± 1.8 or attend church ‘more per week’) compared to middle age people (mean of 4.3

± 2.2 or attend church services ‘more per month’) and youth attend church service as their

middle age counterparts do [means of 4, ± 2.2].


                                              417
Subjective Psychological Wellbeing by gender



The general subjective wellbeing of males in Jamaican is high (6.9 out of 10 ± 1.76) compared to

females, which is equally high (a mean of 6.7 out of 10, ± 1.72). Statistically there is not

difference the mean score of gender (Levene’s test ρ value 0.33). For this analysis, 565 males

were used (which represents 98.4%) to 98.6% of females (n=713). (See Appendix I). Simply

put, there is no difference between the subjective psychological state of male Jamaicans and

female Jamaicans. This denotes that males and females experience the same self-reported

psychological state of wellbeing.


        Multivariate Analysis

        The general hypothesis that I will be testing is



        SWB =ƒ (Re , Ra , G, E, S, A) ………………….…... (2)



        Equation (Eqn. 2) is the subjective wellbeing of Jamaicans SWB is a function of

religiosity, Re ; race or ethnicity, R a ; Educational attainment of the individual, E; Age, , and self-

reported social class. A. From function (2), using the coefficients in Table 4.1.10, the result is a

linear function (2):


   SWB = α + β 1 Re + β 2 R a + β 3 G + β 4 E + β 5 S e i .……..… (3)



           (Where α is the constant, and each β is the coefficient of each factor, and the error e i )
                                                  418
Table 1.1.7: Multiple Regressions for Independent Variables explaining SWB
                                               Model
                               Dependent variable: SWB of Jamaicans


Independent variables:                                 Unstandardized
Standardized
                                                            coefficientsa
coefficients
Religiosity                                              0.086                   0.107***

Race:                                                                               -0.018
    White
     Black (excludes mixed or brown)c                  0.313                      0.076**
     Black (includes mixed)                                                          0.006
Genderb                                                -0.220                      -0.063*
Education                                               0.252                    0.143***
Self-reported social class                               0.491                   0.164***
Age                                                                                  0.034
Intercept                                               5.210
a
 Unstandardized regression coefficients can be used to compare the magnitude of change one
unit of the variable has on SWB.
b
  Dummy variable with female being the reference variable
c
  Dummy variable with blacks only being the reference variable
Adjusted R2 =7.7% ; n=1128; F(5, 1122 ) =19.921 , p,< 0.001
***p < 0.001
** p < 0.01
* p < 0.05



SWB = α + b 1 Re + b 2 Ra + b 3 G + b 4 E + b 5 S e i .……..… (3)



           (Where α is the constant, and each b is the coefficient of each factor, and the error e i )




       Based on the model, 7.7% of the variance in subjective wellbeing of Jamaicans can be

explained by race, religiosity, gender, education and self-reported social class.




                                                 419
The overall model suggests that most significant factors that contributes to SWB is one’s self-

reported social class (3.9%, β= 0.164), followed by educational level (2.2%, β=0.143), then by

(0.9%, β=0.107), after which race (0.4%, β=0.076) and lastly by gender (0.3%, β=- 0.063).

Furthermore, Eqn. (4) can be used to predict the SWB of a Jamaican given particular set of

conditions.


       Example 1: Assume that a Jamaican is a female, whose race is black, who had attended

       tertiary level schooling, who has never attended church services since adulthood and

       whom classified herself as within the middle class. What would the female’s SWB.




SWB = 5.210 + 0.086 R e + 0.313 Ra - 0.220G + 0.252E + 0.491S ……. (4)




SWB = 5.210 + 0.086 * 1 + 0.313 *0 – 0.220 * 1 + 0.252 * 3 + 0.491 * 2 = 6.31




       Example 2. Assume that the only condition that changes from in Example 1 is gender.

       What is the man’s wellbeing, and is it higher compared to that of the female in example

       1?


       SWB = 5.210 + 0.086 * 1 + 0.313 *0 – 0.220 * 0 + 0.252 * 3 + 0.491 * 2 = 6.53. Thus,

gender contributes the least to SWB of Jamaicans, but the SWB of males is marginally more than

that of their female counterparts. Therefore, the linear equation, Eqn 4, can be used to evaluate

other individuals with different sociodemographic characteristics.



                                               420
                                             Conclusion



       One of the advantages of religion is its provision for a different psychological state of its

practitioners. Moreover, according to some scholars, it is an avenue to positive affective

conditions. Thus, it is able to influence other variables such as lifestyle practices – for example,

smoking behaviour, alcohol practices, avoidance of some risky practices, and mediation – along

with a different degree of coping resource, stress buffer and the life satisfaction, which may have

a greater impact on subjective wellbeing compared to the single variable, religion. Because this

current study did not have positive psychological conditions or any of the lifestyle behavioural

variables, I was able to single out the importance of religion on the SWB of Jamaicans.


       Studies have generalized that subjective wellbeing of people is correlated with

psychological factors, and so although religion does not play a pivotal role in the quality of life

of Jamaicans, the literature shows the converse. This current study is suggesting that social

classes, which are associated with educational attainment, occupational type, income and race,

Jamaicans, is more a product of their social class than their religiosity.


       A previous work, call the SABE’s project, using some 10 variable finds that wellbeing of

aged Barbadians was only able to explain 38.2% of the variance of quality of life. The project

that was conducted by Hambleton et al. (2005) did not explore religion, ethnicity, and social

class, and this current work has now filled that gap. Another study which was done a number of

years prior to the SABE’s work, but this time it was in the United States, finds that 29% of the

variance in subjective wellbeing of seniors (i.e. aged people 65 years or over) can be explained

by few selected factors. These variables are marital status, age, gender, education, resources, and

                                                 421
ethnicity. Within the conceptualization of resources are investments, earnings, income and other

receipts that re positive correlated with wellbeing.


       This research did not use marital status, and income, and in the process added religion

and social class. There is a contradiction between both works as a higher economic wellbeing

was found for white in Stum et al.’s project but in this project, blacks were found to possess a

greater subjective wellbeing compared to their white counterparts. On the other hand, we

concurred on education and gender. Both studies find that more years of schooling is positively

correlated with wellbeing, and that male had a marginally greater wellbeing compared to

females. In addition, income sources was generalized to added most explanation to wellbeing

than education in Stum et al., which is essence the same as this study. I find that social class,

which can be used as an indicator of income earnings, was the most explanatory variable

followed by education.


       Despite the low predictability of this paper, the current work is a premise upon which

further studies can commence; and that this should be investigated within those factors identified

herein along with those, which were omitted because of the delimitations of the used dataset.




                                                422
                                          References



Abbe, A., C. Tkach, & S. Lyubomirsky. (2003). The art of living by dispositionally happy
    people. Journal of Happiness Studies 4:385-404.

Acton, G. S., & J.J. Zodda. (2005). Classification of psychopathology: Goals and methods in an
      empirical         approach.        Theory         of       Psychology         15:373-399.
      http://www.personalityresearch.org/acton/goals.html (accessed July 24, 2006).

Arthaud-day, M. L., J. C. Rode, C. H. Mooney, & J. P. Near. (2005). The subjective wellbeing
   construct: A test of its convergent, discriminant, and factorial validity. Social Indicators
   Research 74, 3:445-476. ProQuest (accessed 29 June 2006).

Baker, G. H. B. (1987). Invited review: Psychological factors and immunity. Journal of
   Psychosomatic Research 31:1-10. Quoted in P. L. Rice. 1998. Health Psychology. Los
   Angeles: Brooks/Cole.

Bryant, S., & W. Rakowski. (1992). Predictors of mortality among elderly African American.
   Research on Aging 14: 50-67.

Cox, H., & A. Hammonds. (1988). Religiosity, aging, and life satisfaction. Journal of Religion
   and Aging 5:1-21.

Crisp, Roger. (2005). “Wellbeing.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2005
    Edition) E. N. Zalta ed. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2005/entries/wellbeing/
    (accessed August 22, 2006).

DeNeve, K. M., & H. Cooper. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality
     traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197-229.

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective wellbeing: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national
   index.              American        Psychological       Association       55:        34-43.
   http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/conferences/socialcapital/Happiness%20Readings/Diener_200
   0.pdf (accessed April 6, 2006).

_______. (1984). Subjective wellbeing. Psychological

Diener, E., & R.A. Emmons. (1984). The independence of positive and

   negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47:1105-1117.

Diener, E., J. Horwitz, & R. A. Emmon. (1985). Happiness of the very wealthy. Social
     Indicators Research 16:263-274.


                                             423
Diener, E., & M.E.P. Seligman. (2002), Very happy people. Psychological Science 13: 81–84.

Easterlin, R. A. (2004). How Beneficent Is the Market? A look at the modern history of mortality,
   the reluctant economist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

________. 2003. Building a better theory of wellbeing. Prepared for presentation at the
    conference Paradoxes of Happiness in Economics, University of Milano-Bicocca, March
    21-23, 2003.

    http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~easterl/papers/BetterTheory.pdf (accessed August 26, 2006).

_______. (2001a). Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory. Economic Journal 111:
   465-484 http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/specialarticles/ecoj644.pdf (accessed on
   August 26, 2006).

_______. (2001b). Life cycle welfare: Evidence and conjecture. Journal of Socio-Economics
   30:31-61.

Edmondson, K. A., et al. (2005). Spirituality predicts health and cardiovascular responses to
  stress in young adult women. Journal of Religion and Health 44:161-171. Academic
  Research Premier, EbscoHost (accessed 28 June 2006).

Edwards, J., & D. Klemmack. (1973). Correlates of life satisfaction: a

    re-examination. Journal of Gerontology 28:497-502.

Engel, G. L. (1980). The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model. American
   Journal of Psychiatry 137:535-544.

_________. (1978). The biopsychosocial model and the education of health professionals.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 310: 169-181.

_________. (1977a). The care of the patient: art or science? Johns Hopkins Medical
   Journal 140:222-232.

_________(1977b). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine.
   Science 196:129-136.

_________. (1960). A unified concept of health and disease. Perspectives in Biology and
Medicine 3:459-485.

Evans, C. C., M. Sherer, T. G. Nick, R. Nakase, & S. Yablon. (2005). Early impaired self-
   awareness, depression, and subjective wellbeing following traumatic brain injury. Journal of
   Head Traua Rehabilitation 20:488-500. Academic Research Premier EbscoHost (accessed
   July 24, 2006).

                                              424
Fiori,K.L., E.E. Brown,K.S. Cortina, & T. C. Antonucci. (2006). Locus of control as a mediator
    of the relationship between religiosity and life satisfaction: Age, race, and gender differences.
    Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 9:239-263.

Frazier, C., L. B. Mintz, & M. Mobley. (2005). A multidimensional look at religious
   involvement and psychological wellbeing among urban elderly African Americans. Journal
   of Counseling Psychology 52:583-590.

Fromson, P. M. (2006). Self-discrepancies and negative affect: The moderating roles of private
   and public self-consciousness. Social behavior and Personality 34:333-350. Academic
   Research Premier, EbscoHost (accessed 24 July 2006).

Hambleton, I. R., K. Clarke, H. L. Broome, H. S. Fraser, F. Brathwaite, & A. J. Hennis (2005).
  Historical and current predictors of self-reported health status among elderly persons in
  Barbados. http://journal.paho.org/index.php?a_ID=290 (accessed March 22, 2006).

Harris, P. R., & O. R. Lightsey Jr. (2005). Constructive thinking as a mediator of the
   relationship between extraversion, neuroticism, and subjective wellbeing. European Journal
   of Personality 19:409-426. Academic Research Premier, EbscoHost (accessed July 2006).

House, J. S., C. Robbins, & J .L. Metzner. (1982). The association of social relationships and
   activities with mortality: Prospective evidence from the Tecumseh Community Health
   Study. American Journal of Epidemiology 116: 123-140. Quoted in Religious involvement
   and U.S. adult mortality, R. A. Hummer, R. G. Rogers, C. B. Nam, and C. G. Ellison. 1999.
   Demography 36:273-285.

Hummer, R. A., G. A. Richard, C. B. Nam, & C. G. Ellison. (1999). Religious involvement and
  U.S. Adult Mortality. Demography 36:273-285.

Jemmott, J.B., & S.E. Locke. (1984). Psychosocial factors, immunologic mediation, and human
   susceptibility to infectious diseases: How much do we know? Psychological Bulletin, 95:78-
   108. Quoted in Health Psychology, P. L. Rice. 1998. Los Angeles: Brooks/Cole.

Kail, R. V., & J. C. Cavanaugh. (2004). Human development: A life-span view, 3rd ed. New
   York: Thomson.

Kashdan, T. B. (2004). The assessment of subjective wellbeing (issues raised by the Oxford
   Happiness Questionnaire).     Personality and Individual Differences 36:1225–1232.
   http://mason.gmu.edu/~tkashdan/publications/happy.PDF (accessed June 29, 2006

Leung, B. W., G. B. Moneta, & C. McBride-Chang. (2005). Think positively and feel positively:
   Optimism and life satisfaction in late life. International Journal of Aging and human
   development 61:335-365. Academic Search Premier, EbscoHost (accessed July 20, 2006)

Levin, J. S. (1994). Investigating the epidemiologic effects of religious experience: Findings,
                                                425
   explanations, and barriers. In Religion in Aging and Health: Theoretical Foundations and
   Methodological Frontiers, ed. J.S. Levin. Los Angeles: Sage.

Liang, J. (1986). Self-report health among adults. Journal of Gerontology, 41:248-260.

_______. 1985. A structural integration of the affect balance scale and the life satisfaction index
   A. Journal of Gerontology, 40:552-561.

_______.(1984). Dimensions of the life satisfaction index A: A structural formulation. Journal of
   Gerontology 39:613-622.

Lusyne, P., H. Page, & J. Lievens. (2001). Mortality following conjugal bereavement, Belgium
    1991-96: The unexpected effect of education. Population studies 55:281-289

Lyubomirsky, S. (2001). Why are some people happier than others? The role of cognitive and
    motivational process in wellbeing.              American Psychologist 56:239-249.
    http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~sonja/papers/L2001.pdf (accessed July 22, 2006).

Lyubomirsky, S., L. King, & E. Diener. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does
   happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 6, 803-855.

McCullough, M.E., C.G. Bellah, S.D. Kilpatrick, & J.L. Johnson. (2001). Vengefulness:
   Relationships with forgiveness, rumination, wellbeing, and the big five. Personality and
   Social                 Psychology                   Bulletin                 27:601-610.
   http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/McCullough.pdf (accessed July
   24, 2006).

Markides, K. S. (1983). Aging, religiosity, and adjustment: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of
   Gerontology 38:621-625.

Moody, H. R. (2006). Is religion good for your health? Gerontologist 14:147-149. Academic
  Research Library, ProQuest (accessed April 12, 2006).

Paloutzian, R.Z., & L.A. Kirkpatrick. (1995). Introduction: The scope of religious influences on
    personal and societal wellbeing. Journal of Social Issues 51:1-11.

Rice, P. L. (1998). Health psychology. Los Angeles: Brooks/Cole.

Sheldon, K., & S. Lyubomirsky. (2006). How to increase and sustain positive emotion: The
     effects of expressing gratitude and visualizing best possible selves. Journal of Positive
     Psychology 1:73-82.

Smith, J. P., & R. Kington. (1997a). Demographic and economic correlates of health in old age.
   Demography 34:159-170.

___________. (1997b). Race, socioeconomic status, and health in late life. Quoted in L. G.
                                               426
   Martin and B.J. Soldo. Racial and ethnic differences in health of older American, ed.
   Washington, DC: National Academy Press

Spreitzer, E., & E. Snyder. (1974). Correlates of life satisfaction. Journal of Gerontology 29:77-
   82.

Stum, M., Bauer, J.W., & P.J. Delaney. (1993). Economic wellbeing of disabled elderly living in
      the community. Financial counseling and Planning 4:199-218.

Stutzer, A., & B.S Frey. (2003). Reported subjective wellbeing: A challenge for economic
    theory and economic policy.

   http://www.crema-research.ch/papers/2003-07.pdf (accessed August 31, 2006).

Taylor, S. (1999). Health psychology, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Whang, K. M. (2006). Wellbeing syndrome in Korea: A view from the perspective of biblical
  counseling. Evangelical Review of Theology 30:152-161. Academic Research Premier,
  EBSCOhost (accessed July 12, 2006).

Watson, D., L.A. Clark, & A. Tellegen. (1988a). Development and validation of brief measures
  of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scale. Journal of Personality and Social
  Psychology 54:1063-1070

_________. (1988b). Positive and negative affectivity and their relation to anxiety and
   depressive disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 97:346-353




                                               427
                                                                                          Chapter


                                                                                                10


Religiosity and Trust



Introduction: Background



The issue of distrust (or low confidence) in other persons or in organizations is one of the

hallmarks of religions. Among the culturalization of religious espouse the eulogy of trusting in

God and distrusting others. There are scriptures in the Holy Bible such as Micah 7:5, 2

Corinthians 1:9 and Philippian 3:4 that speak the distrusting others (or the flesh) while other

passages in the sample text have pointed out the importance of only trusting in God. One

scripture highlighted the rationale for not placing ones confidence in anyone or anything else as

God is a jealous God. These ideational explains one of the religious dogma that goes to the crux

of the matter as to the low confidence highly religious individuals will have for organizations

except for the church and it relates agents and for other person. In this study we have used

empiricism to unravel whether highly religious people are less likely to trust others or in

institutions; and the disparity in trust that religiosity display between particular institutions -

church versus other organizations.




                                               428
       Demographic Characteristics of Sample


       Of the total number of respondents interviewed (N=1,338), the response rate for those

who answered the question on sex was 96.7% (n=1,297).               Some 11.4% of the sampled

respondents were females (55.7%) compared to males (44.3%). (see Table 1). The mean age for

the sampled respondents was 35 years ± 13.6 years, with the average age for males being 35.8

years ± 13.7 years that is more than the mean age for females (i.e. 34.3 years ± 13.4 yrs). Based

on table 1, the sampled population reported the highest degree of trust in schools (9 out of 10

Jamaicans), trust in church (8 out of 10 Jamaicans), interpersonal (3 out of 10 people),

organizations (3 out of 10 people) compared to trust in the government (8 out of 100 Jamaicans).

With regards to wellbeing, the findings revealed that the mean wellbeing of Jamaicans was very

high (7 out of 10) ± 1.73, (see Table 1) with there being no statistical difference between the

wellbeing for males (6.9 ±1.8) and that of females (6.8 ± 1.7).


      FINDINGS


      The primary purpose of this study is to examine different model of trust with an emphasis

on religiosity and other predisposed demographic variables. However, before we venture into

our main purpose, we will investigate a number of sub-hypotheses.


     When we examine the statistical relation between interpersonal trust and religiosity, we

found a statistical association between the two aforementioned variables - χ2 (4) = 9.404, ρ

value = 0.009 < 0.05, a weak relationship exists (correlation coefficient = 0.087). (see table 2).




                                                429
Table 1: Demographic Characteristic of Sampled Population, N=1,338

Details                                    Count                        Percentage

Gender

   Male                                    574                          44.3

   Female                                  723                          55.7

Organizational Trust

 Very low to Low                           903                          67.9

  Moderate to high                         427                          32.1

Trust in government

  Do not trust                             1,134                        92.0

  Trust                                       99                         8.0

Interpersonal Trust

  Do not trust                             795                          62.7

  Trust                                    472                          37.3

Trust in the Church

   Trust                                   1,096                        82.8

   Distrust                                  227                         17.2

Trust in School

 Trust                                     1,223                        92.8

   Distrust                                  95                          7.2

Well-being 6.9 ± 1.73 (SD), Range 10: 0 minimum to 10 maximum, with a mode of 7.8

Age 35 yrs. ± 13.6 yrs (SD), Range 69 yrs.: Minimum of 16 yrs. o a maximum of 85 yrs., with a
mode of 19 yrs.




                                             430
Hypothesis 1.1: There is a statistical association between interpersonal trust and religiosity



Furthermore examination of hypothesis 1.1 revealed a weak positive association between

interpersonal trust and religiosity, which mean that the more an individual increases his/her

frequency in attending church (outside of baptism, christening, funerals, weddings, graduation, et

cetera), the more they will trust other people. When religiosity is low, 29.3% of respondents

trust other people, 38.3% when religiosity is moderate and 40% when it is high.             Thus,

interpersonal trust increased by 10.7% when religiosity changes from low to high, and by 9%

when religiosity changes from low to moderate. (see Table 2)


Table 2: Bivariate analysis between Interpersonal Trust and Religiosity of respondents, N=1,243

                                                            Religiosity
                                             Low                   Moderate               High



Interpersonal Trust:
        No                                   70.7                  61.7                   60.0


        Yes                                  29.3                  38.3                   40.0




Count                                        276                   420                    547



χ2 (4) = 9.404, ρ value = 0.009 < 0.05, cc=0.087




                                               431
Hypothesis 1.2: There is a statistical association between interpersonal trust and religiosity controlled for sex

When interpersonal trust and religiosity was controlled for sex, there is no statistical difference between sexes – p value > 0.05. (see
table 3).


Table 3: Cross-tabulation between Organizational Trust and Enumerated to vote controlled by sex, N=1, 204

                                                                           Religiosity
                                       Low           Moderate       High                  Low            Moderate               High




Interpersonal Trust:                                 Male 26                                             Female 27
          No                           68.9          61.6           57.5                     74.0         61.4               61.6
          Yes                          31.1          38.4           42.5                      26.0        38.6               38.4




Count                                  164           185            186                      100            228                341




26
     χ2 (2) = 4.887, ρ value = 0.087 > 0.05, N=535
27
     χ2 (2) = 5.717, ρ value = 0.057 > 0.05, N=669
                                                                  432
Hypothesis 1.3: There is a statistical association between interpersonal trust and religiosity controlled for age of respondents




The statistical association that exists between interpersonal trust and religiosity is explained by youth (p value < 0.05) and not other

age cohorts (p value > 0.05). (see table 4).


Table 4: Cross-tabulation between Interpersonal Trust and Religiosity controlled by age group, N=1, 243

                                                                           Religiosity
                              Low     Moderate High         Low     Moderate High           Low       Moderate     High




Interpersonal Trust:                  Youth 28              Other Adults 29                              Elderly30
        No                    73.2    67.2     57.5         69.9    59.1   60.6               50.0       60.0      64.3
        Yes                   26.8    32.8     42.5         30.1    40.9   39.4              50.0        40.0     35.7




Count                         97      131      179          173     274    312                  6        15      56



28
   χ2 (2) = 7.383, ρ value = 0.025 < 0.05, N=407
29
   χ2 (2) = 5.862, ρ value = 0.053 > 0.05, N=759
30
   χ2 (2) = 0.514, ρ value = 0.773 > 0.05, N=77
                                                                   433
Hypothesis 2: There is a statistical relation between organizational trust and religiosity


Based on hypothesis 2, we have failed to reject the null hypothesis as p value > 0.05 (see Table

5). Hence, this means that religiosity does not influence general organizational trust. Embedded

in this finding the fact that Jamaicans do not trust organizations because they have a higher (or

lesser) religiosity.



Table 5:      Bivariate analysis between Organizational Trust and Religiosity of respondents,
N=1,311

                                                           Religiosity
                                            Low                    Moderate              High



Organizational Trust:
        No                                  70.9                   68.0                  66.0


        Yes                                 29.1                   32.0                  34.0




Count                                       285                    438                   588



χ2 (4) = 2.128, ρ value = 0.345 < 0.05




                                              434
Hypothesis 3.1: There is a statistical relation between trust in government and religiosity


Although we found that there is no statistical relation between general organizational trust and

religiosity (see Table 5, p value> 0.05), we found one between trust in government and

religiosity - χ2 (2) = 13.699, ρ value = 0.001 > 0.05. The findings indicated that the highest

level of trust in government was reported by those who attend church moderately (outside of

baptism, funerals, weddings, christening, graduation, and other special occasions), 12.0%, with

those who attend frequently 5.4% compared to those who attend infrequently (i.e.. 7.8%).



Table 6:      Bivariate analysis between Trust in government and Religiosity of respondents,
N=1,216

                                                           Religiosity
                                            Low                   Moderate                 High



Trust in government:
        No                                  92.2                  88.0                     94.6


        Yes                                 7.8                   12.0                     5.4




Count                                       269                   408                      539



χ2 (2) = 13.699, ρ value = 0.001 > 0.05, cc=0.106




                                              435
Hypothesis 3.2: There is a statistical relation between trust in government and religiosity controlled for sex


When the statistical relation between trust in government and religiosity was controlled for sex, we found that gender explain this

association – male (χ2 (2) = 7.508, ρ value = 0.023 < 0.05) – and female (χ2 (2) = 7.294, ρ value = 0.026 > 0.05). Based on table 7,

men are trusting of government than their female counterparts. At the moderate level of religiosity, men are approximately twice as

females; and the same pattern is observed at the high level of religiosity.


Table 7: Cross-tabulation between Trust in Government and Religiosity controlled for sex, N=1, 183

                                                                              Religiosity
                                       Low            Moderate       High                   Low       Moderate              High




Trust in government:                                  Male 31                                         Female 32
          No                           92.0           84.1           91.9                     91.8    90.7               96.1
          Yes                          8.0            15.9           8.1                      8.2      9.3                3.9



Count                                  162            176            185                     98          226               336



31
     χ2 (2) = 7.508, ρ value = 0.023 < 0.05, N=523, cc=0.119
32
     χ2 (2) = 7.294, ρ value = 0.026 > 0.05, N=660, cc=0.105
                                                                    436
Hypothesis 3.3: There is a statistical association between trust in government and religiosity controlled for age of respondents

In seeking to further explain the statistical relation that we found between trust in government and religiosity, we controlled this by

age group and found that this is explained by youth (p value < 0.05) and other adults (p value < 0.05) and not by elderly cohort (p

value> 0.05). Thus, there is a difference between degree of trust in government for youth and other adults and not for the elderly.


Table 8: Cross-tabulation between Trust in government and Religiosity controlled by age group, N=1, 216

                                                                           Religiosity
                              Low    Moderate High          Low     Moderate High                   Low   Moderate High




Trust in government:                 Youth 33               Other Adults 34                               Elderly35
        No                    94.6   88.2    95.6           90.6    87.6   96.7              100.0        93.3     79.6
        Yes                   5.4    11.8    4.4            9.4     12.4   3.3                 0.0        6.7      20.4




Count                         154    127     183            170     266    302                  6         15       54


33
   χ2 (2) = 6.880, ρ value = 0.032 < 0.05, N=403, cc=0.131
34
   χ2 (2) = 16.507, ρ value = 0.001 < 0.05, N=738, cc=0.148
35
   χ2 (2) = 02.882, ρ value = 0.237> 0.05, N=75
                                                                   437
Hypothesis 4.1: Highly religious more than lowly religious people have a greater trust in
family



An examination to ascertain whether there is a statistical association between trust in family and

religiosity – given that no statistical relation exists between generalized trust in organization and

religiosity – found that no statistical association was there between trust in family and religiosity

- χ2 (2) = 1.351, ρ value = 0.509 > 0.05.




Table 9: Bivariate analysis between Trust in Family and Religiosity of respondents, N=1,301

                                                              Religiosity

                                              Low                    Moderate                High



Trust in family:

        No                                    91.5                   93.8                    93.0


        Yes                                   8.5                    6.2                     7.0




Count                                         283                    435                     583



χ2 (2) = 1.351, ρ value = 0.509 > 0.05




                                                438
Hypothesis 4.2: Highly religious more than lowly religious people have a greater trust in
school



Having found that Jamaicans trust the schools the most – 9 out of 10 people – we wanted to

investigate trust in schools and religiosity and found that no statistical association exists between

the two aforementioned variables - χ2 (2) = 1.969, ρ value = 0.374 > 0.05. Thus, Jamaicans do

not trust the school because of their frequency (or infrequency) in church attendance.




Table 10: Bivariate analysis between Trust in School and Religiosity of respondents, N=1,304

                                                              Religiosity
                                              Low                    Moderate                High



Trust in school:

        No                                    91.9                   90.6                    93.0


        Yes                                   8.1                    9.4                     7.0




Count                                         284                    435                     585



χ2 (2) = 1.969, ρ value = 0.374 > 0.05




                                                439
Hypothesis 4.3: Highly religious more than lowly religious people have a greater trust in
the church



From the univariate analysis, the church was the second most trusting institutions in Jamaica – 8

out of 10 people – and knowing that no statistical association exists between general

organizational trust and religiosity, we wanted to examine if there is a statistical association

between trust in churches and religiosity. The number of persons used for the cross tabulation

between trust in church and religiosity was 1,304 (i.e. 97.5%), and this we found to be weak

positive association (single correlation coefficient = 0.248). Using coefficient of determination,

6.2% of the variance in trust in church can be explained by religiosity. Hence, Jamaicans trust in

church is influence by religiosity, but religiosity is a low explain this trust in churches.




Table 11:     Bivariate analysis between Trust in the Church and Religiosity of respondents,
N=1,304

                                                               Religiosity
                                               Low                     Moderate                High



Trust in Church:
        No                                     67.0                    81.7                    91.9


        Yes                                    33.0                    18.3                    8.1



Count                                          283                     435                     583

χ2 (2) = 85.373, ρ value = 0.001 < 0.05, cc=0.248




                                                 440
Hypothesis 4.4: Women attend church more frequently than men



We found that significant more female attends church more frequently than their men

counterparts - at the most frequent degree - 51.6% to 35.5% respectively. The statistical

association between the two aforementioned variables was a weak positive one (single

correlation coefficient = 20.1%). Furthermore, only 4% of the variance in religiosity can be

explained by gender of the respondents.




Table 12.1: Bivariate analysis between Religiosity and sex of respondents, N=1,271

                                                    Gender of respondents

                                            Male                        Female



Religiosity:

        Low                                 30.3                        14.7


        Moderate                            34.2                        33.7


        High                                35.5                        51.6



Count                                       558                         713

χ2 (2) = 53.5, ρ value = 0.001 < 0.05, cc=0.201




                                              441
Hypothesis 4.5: There is a statistical relation between trusting the church and religiosity



An investigation to ascertain whether a statistical relation between trust in churches and

religiosity found a weak positive association between the two aforementioned variables – χ2 (2)

= 85.373, ρ value = 0.001 < 0.05, with a bivariate correlation being 0.248 (or 24.8%). Thus, 6%

of the variance in trust for churches is explained by frequency of church attendance outside of

special occasions such as baptisms, weddings, funerals, graduations, et cetera. Furthermore,

from the findings in table 13, 67% of Jamaicans who attend churches infrequently (i.e. low

church attendance) trust churches compared to 81.7% of those who attend on a moderate basis

with 91.2% of those who attend frequently (i.e. at least once per week).




Table 13: Bivariate analysis between trusting the church and Religiosity, N=1,304

                                                       Religiosity
                              Low              Moderate                    High



Trust in churches:

        Trust                 67.0               81.7                      91.9


        Distrust              33.0               18.3                      8.1



Count                         285                436                       583

χ2 (2) = 85.373, ρ value = 0.001 < 0.05, cc=0.248




                                               442
Hypothesis 4.6: There is a statistical relation between trusting churches and religiosity controlled for sex


When we controlled trust in churches and religiosity by gender, we found that males are more trusting in churches than their female

counterparts – bivariate correlation for males being 0.266 and 0.212 for females. Some 63.1% of male who had low level of

religiosity trust churches, whereas 72.4% of females who indicated a low religiosity trust in churches.


Table 14: Cross-tabulation between Trust in Churches and Religiosity controlled for sex, N=1, 263

                                                                           Religiosity

                                       Low              Moderate    High                   Low            Moderate         High




Trust in Churches:                            Male 36                                              Female 37
          Trust                        63.1             82.0        90.3                      72.4        81.3          92.6

          Distrust                     36.9             18.0        9.7                       27.6        18.8           7.4




Count                                  168              189         196                      105               240         365



36
     χ2 (2) = 42.038, ρ value = 0.001 < 0.05, N=553 cc=0.266
37
     χ2 (2) = 33.411, ρ value = 0.001 < 0.05, N=710, cc=0.212
                                                                   443
Hypothesis 4.7: Highly religious more than lowly religious people have a greater trust in
the Prime Minister



On investigating whether an association exists between trusting the Prime Minister (at the time

this was held by Mrs. Portia L. Simpson-Miller) and religiosity, we found a weak reciprocal

relation between the 2 aforementioned variables – single bivariate correlation being 0.079. In

each of the category of religiosity, less than 50% of people reported that they trust the prime

minister. However, the greatest number of people revealed that they had a low trust for the

office of the prime minister (47.6%) compared to 39.2% who had indicated moderate, with

37.7% for those who were reported to have indicated high church attendance.




Table 15: Bivariate analysis between Trust in the Prime Minister and Religiosity of respondents,
N=1,252

                                                           Religiosity

                                            Low                   Moderate              High



Trust in Prime Minister:
        No                                  52.4                  60.8                  62.3


        Yes                                 47.6                  39.2                  37.7




Count                                       273                   416                   563



χ2 (2) = 7.928, ρ value = 0.019 < 0.05, cc=0.079



                                              444
Hypothesis 4.9: Highly religious more than lowly religious people have a greater trust in the Prime Minister controlled for sex



When the statistical association between trusting the prime minister and religiosity was controlled for sex, it was revealed that the

relation was because of females (p value < 0.05 - χ2 (2) = 6.432, ρ value = 0.040) and not because of males (p value > 0.05). (see

table 14).


Table 14: Cross-tabulation between Trust in Prime Minister and Religiosity controlled for sex, N=1, 252

                                                                         Religiosity
                                       Low           Moderate     High                  Low            Moderate              High




Trust in Prime Minister:                             Male 38                                           Female 39
          No                           55.0          59.0         60.3                      49.5       62.8               62.9
          Yes                          45.0          41.0         39.7                     50.5           37.2             37.1




Count                                  160           178          189                      101             231              353

38
     χ2 (2) = 1.067, ρ value = 0.587 > 0.05, N=527
39
     χ2 (2) = 6.432, ρ value = 0.040 < 0.05, N=685, cc=0.096
                                                                445
Hypothesis 4.10: Highly religious more than lowly religious people have a greater trust in the Prime Minister controlled for
age group

The relationship that exists between trusting the prime minister and religiosity is as a result of young people - χ2 (2) = 17.061, ρ value

= 0.001 < 0.05, N=417, cc=0.198.


Table 15: Cross-tabulation between Trust in Prime Minister and Religiosity controlled for age group, N=1, 252

                                                                            Religiosity

                              Low     Moderate High          Low     Moderate High                   Low   Moderate High




Trust in Prime Minister:              Youth 40               Other Adults 41                               Elderly42
        No                    37.8    61.5   61.4            60.4    59.6   62.4              66.7         75.0        65.5

        Yes                   62.2    38.5   38.6            39.6    40.4   37.6               33.3        25.0        34.5




Count                         98      130    189             169     270    319               6               16 55



40
   χ2 (2) = 17.061, ρ value = 0.001 < 0.05, N=417, cc=0.198
41
   χ2 (2) = 0.498, ρ value = 0.780 > 0.05, N=758
42
   χ2 (2) = 0.517, ρ value = 0.772 > 0.05, N=77
                                                                    446
In this section of the paper we will seek to model different typologies of trust with
particular sociodemographic factors.

Model 1: T i =ƒ (R, A, RA, O, AR, X, E)…………………………..…………….…[1.1]

Of the seven predisposed variables that were use in model 1 (above), 3 of them were

found to be statistically significant. The 3 factors explain 7.5% of the variance (i.e.

Nagelkerke R square) in the model.          Model 1 examined factors that influence

interpersonal trust in Jamaica, with the focus on religiosity. We found that the less

Jamaicans are religiosity, the less they will trust other people [Exp (B) = 0.934, B=-

0.069, 95%CI – 0.876 to 0.994]. On the other hand, age (Wald statistic = 7.8) and

individual educational attainment (secondary – Wald statistic = 11.2; post-secondary –

Wald statistic = 14.5; Tertiary – Wald statistic – 33.0) are positively association with

interpersonal trust. The most significant factor being education followed by age and last

by religiosity.


     With respect to age of respondents, the older an individual gets he/she will trust

more (Exp(B)=1.0. This positive association was also observed between educational

attainment and interpersonal trust. However, the more an individual becomes qualified

(using formal education standard), interpersonal trust will increased by approximately 2

times at the secondary level (with reference to primary and below education), 2.5 times at

the post-secondary level (with reference to primary and below education) and this will

increase as much as 4.1 times at the tertiary level (with referent to primary and below

education). (see table16) .


   Hence, the model that will be used here is a parsimonious one (see Model [1.2]–


T i =ƒ (R, A, E)…………………………..…………………………………………[1.2]

                                           447
Table 16: Explanation model of interpersonal trust and predisposed variables



                             B         S.E.         Wald         df   Sig.   Exp(B)
                                                                                        95.0% C.I. for
                                                                                           EXP(B)


                                                                                       Lower     Upper
         Religiosity         -.069       .032        4.550        1   .033      .934      .876     .994
         Age                  .015       .006        7.770        1   .005     1.015     1.005    1.027
         Race1                .619       .672         .848        1   .357     1.857      .497    6.932
         Race2                .845       .619        1.862        1   .172     2.328      .692    7.832
         Occupation           .180       .173        1.076        1   .300     1.197      .852    1.681
         Kingston &
                             .387        .197        3.843        1   .050     1.472    1.000      2.166
         .A
         Sex                 .100        .138         .517        1   .472     1.105     .842      1.449
         Secondary           .736        .220       11.156        1   .001     2.088    1.356      3.217
         Post
                             .912        .240       14.492        1   .000     2.489    1.556      3.980
         Secondary
         Tertiary            1.414       .246       33.001        1   .000     4.110    2.538      6.658
         Constant           -2.734       .737       13.770        1   .000      .065
-2 Log Likelihood = 1,268.6
Nagelkerke R square = 0.075 (or 7.5%)
Chi-square (10) = 56.982, p value = 0.001
N=1,012, 75.6%




Classification Table(a)


                Observed                                      Predicted
                                                      Dummy Trust
                                                        (1=Trust)       Percentage
                                                      .00      1.00      Correct
Step 1          Dummy            .00
                Trust                                      587        58        91.0
                (1=Trust)
                               1.00                        296        71        19.3
                Overall Percentage                                              65.0
a The cut value is .500

                                              448
In this section of the work, we will examine the particular sociodemographic variables

and their influence on trust in government with particular attention being placed on

religiosity. We prescribed that religiosity ( R), age of respondents (A ), occupation (O ),

area of residence (RA ), sex (X ) and educational attainment (E) are possible factor of

trust in government – using the literature review. Using the observational sample survey

data, we found that only age of respondent is a factor of trust in government – p value =

0.022 < 0.05. Age of the respondents explains 4% of the model. Hence, using one the

significant variable(s) in the final model, we will modify model 2.1 to model 2.2. Based

on table 17, trust in government is positive associated with the older people become.

Hence, religiosity does not affect trust in government.


Model 2.1: T G=ƒ (R, A, RA, O, AR, X, E)…………………………………………[2.1]

Model 2.2: T G=ƒ ( A)…………………………………………..…………………[2.2]




                                           449
Table 17: Regression Model of Trust in Government, Explanatory Variables


                            B         S.E.         Wald         df      Sig.      Exp(B)
                                                                                              95.0% C.I. for
                                                                                                 EXP(B)


                                                                                             Lower     Upper
         Religiosity         .093       .055        2.859        1      .091        1.097       .985    1.222
         Age                 .020       .009        5.275        1      .022        1.021      1.003    1.039
         Race1              -.751       .890         .712        1      .399         .472       .082    2.702
         Race2              -.721       .797         .818        1      .366         .486       .102    2.319
         Occupation          .077       .312         .061        1      .805        1.080       .586    1.992
         Kingston&
                            .394        .329        1.431        1      .232        1.482       .778     2.825
         A
         Sex                .321        .239        1.796        1      .180        1.378       .862     2.204
         Secondary          .183        .333         .304        1      .582        1.201       .626     2.305
         Post
                            -.065       .380         .029        1      .864         .937       .445     1.975
         Secondary
         Tertiary           -.468       .432        1.174        1      .279         .627       .269     1.460
         Constant          -3.029      1.031        8.631        1      .003         .048
-2 Log Likelihood = 549.3
Nagelkerke R square = 0.040 (or 4.0%)
Chi-square (10) = 17.4, p value = 0.001
N=997, 74.5%




Classification Table(a)

                Observed                                         Predicted
                                                     Trust_In_govt              Percentage
                                                     .00             1.00        Correct
Step 1          Trust_In_gov .00
                                                          915               0        100.0
                t
                               1.00                        82               0           .0
                Overall Percentage                                                    91.8
a The cut value is .500



                                             450
In keeping with the literature review, we wrote a function that we thought express those

variables that influence organizational trust. (see Model 3.1).        Using sample survey

research data, of the predisposed variables that were identified in model 3.1, we found

that only one of the variables outlined is statistical significant – Age – p value 0.041 <

0.05. Hence, age of respondents explains 2% of the model. The model that will be used

here is based on statistically significant variables. (see Model 3.2 – table


Model 3.1: T O =ƒ (R, A, RA, O, AR, X, E)………………........……………….…[3.1]

Model 3.1: T O =ƒ (A)……………….......................……………….…[3.2]



Table 18: Logistic regression of trust in organization


                             B         S.E.         Wald      df     Sig.      Exp(B)
                                                                                          95.0% C.I. for
                                                                                             EXP(B)


                                                                                         Lower     Upper
         Religiosity         -.041       .032        1.686      1    .194         .960      .902    1.021
         Age                  .011       .005        4.167      1    .041        1.011     1.000    1.021
         Race1               -.049       .572         .007      1    .932         .952      .310    2.925
         Race2               -.119       .522         .052      1    .820         .888      .319    2.470
         Occupation           .077       .173         .201      1    .654        1.080      .770    1.515
         Kingston&
                              .129       .196         .433      1    .511        1.138      .775     1.670
         A
         Sex                  .102       .136         .569      1    .451        1.108      .849     1.445
         Secondary           -.068       .198         .119      1    .730         .934      .633     1.377
         Post
                              .059       .218         .073      1    .788        1.061      .691     1.627
         Secondary
         Tertiary            -.251       .231        1.179      1    .278         .778      .495     1.224
         Constant            -.914       .639        2.049      1    .152         .401
-2 Log Likelihood = 1,326.46
Nagelkerke R square = 0.017 (or 1.7%)
Chi-square (10) = 12.842, p value = 0.001
N=1,066, 79.7%


                                              451
Classification Table(a)

                    Observed                                  Predicted
                                                  Trust_in_Sociopolit
                                                       ical_Inst        Percentage
                                                    .00        1.00      Correct
Step 1          Trust_in_Soc .00
                iopolitical_In                         722           1          99.9
                st
                               1.00                    343           0            .0
                Overall Percentage                                              67.7
a The cut value is .500



In seeking to examine the different types models, owing the degree of trust Jamaicans

have in churches, we believe that it would be fitting to understand the possible factors

that explain this trust for this institution. Thus, we identify a possible model in 4.1 that

had a number of variables which are likened to those that were used in the previous

models.


Model        4.1:              TC   =ƒ      (R,      A,      RA,         O,    AR,       X,

E)………………………..…………..…….[4.1]


         The sample survey research data revealed that 7 variables that were identified in

model 4.1, two of them – religiosity and educational attainment – explain 15.5% of the

variance in trust in churches. We found that less people attend church, the less they are

trusting of the institution (Exp(B) = 0.683, 95% CI: 0.628 to 0.744). Furthermore, people

who indicated that their educational level was at the secondary level (with reference to

primary and below) trust the churches less - Exp(B) = 0.561, 95% CI: 0.332 to 0.947. A

similar negative association was found between tertiary level (with referent to primary


                                            452
and below level) and trust in churches – Exp (B) = 0.442, 95% CI: 0.240 to 0.812. Of the

two variables which are statistically significant ones, religiosity contributes more to trust

in churches – Wald statistic = 77.3 – compared to educational attainment – secondary

(Wald statistic = 4.7) and tertiary – Wald statistic = 6.9.


       Hence, the final model that is used to express trust in churches is model 4.2. In

model 4.2, we utilize only the variables that were statistical significant – parsimonious.




Model 4.2: T C =ƒ (R, E)………………………....……………….……..…….[4.2]




                                             453
Table 19: Logistic regression of trust in churches


                           B          S.E.         Wald         df      Sig.     Exp(B)
                                                                                            95.0% C.I. for
                                                                                               EXP(B)


                                                                                            Lower    Upper
         Age               -.006        .007         .753        1      .386        .994      .980    1.008
         Secondary         -.578        .267        4.691        1      .030        .561      .332     .947
         Post
                           -.264        .314         .706        1      .401        .768      .415     1.421
         Secondary
         Tertiary          -.817        .310        6.927        1      .008        .442      .240      .812
         Sex                .140        .176         .634        1      .426       1.150      .815     1.624
         Religiosity       -.381        .043       77.278        1      .000        .683      .628      .744
         Occupation        -.120        .225         .287        1      .592        .887      .571     1.377
         Area of res.       .093        .262         .125        1      .724       1.097      .656     1.833
         Constant          3.871        .542       51.065        1      .000      47.978

-2 Log Likelihood = 867.2
Nagelkerke R square = 0.155 (or 15.5%)
Chi-square (8) = 103.7, p value = 0.001
N=1,065, 79.6%




                               Classification Table(a)

                Observed                                         Predicted
                                                     dummy_church              Percentage
                                                     .00             1.00       Correct
Step 1          dummy_chur .00
                                                           17          164            9.4
                ch
                               1.00                         5          879           99.4
                Overall Percentage                                                   84.1
a The cut value is .500




                                             454
Discussion and Conclusion



Again the issue of distrust (or low confidence) in other persons or in organizations is one

of the hallmarks of religions as one of its tenet is that the precept of trusting of God is

contravenes trusting others or sociopolitical entities. The culturalization of religious

espouses the eulogy of trusting in God and distrusting others – this includes government,

political parties, idols, and other gods. There are scriptures in the Holy Bible such as

Micah 7:5, 2 Corinthians 1:9 and Philippian 3:4 that speak the distrusting others (or the

flesh) while other passages in the sample text have pointed out the importance of only

trusting in God. One scripture highlighted the rationale for not placing ones confidence

in anyone or anything else as God is a jealous God. These ideational explains one of the

religious dogma that goes to the crux of the matter as to the low confidence in others and

institutions by highly religious individuals with the only except being in trusting god and

he institution of the church (mosque, synagogue) and it relates agents.


        In this study – using observational survey research we that religiosity is

associated with some aspects to particular typologies of trust. Among the interesting

findings of this study are (1) females are more highly religious (using frequency with

which an individual attends church services outside of special occasions such as

weddings, graduations, funerals, graduations, baptisms, christening); (2) males are more

trusting than females – this indicates the disparity in suspicion and cynicism of sexes and

this is explain by socialization as society is a patriotic ones and female are cognizant of

the injustices, equality and unfairness of the system and ergo they are thereby less

trusting compared to their man folks as the structure of the society is male dominated and


                                           455
favoured men compared to their female counterparts ; (3) the most trusting institution in

the society is the family, but religiosity does not explain this status and this is equally so

for schools that is the second most trusting institution; (4) religiosity is a factor for

particular typologies of trust – these are interpersonal trust, organizational trust and trust

in churches.


        Religiosity and age are mild explanations for organization trust (R-square =

1.7%); with age, education and religiosity explaining 7.5%; religiosity is not a factor for

trusting in government.     Although religiosity does not explain organizational trust,

religiosity and educational attainment explains 15.5% of why people trust the church.

We found that the more people expand their educational level, the less they trust the

church and the more they trust other persons. This should not come as a surprise as many

of the principles are scientific inquiry, and these oftentimes contrives the philosophy of

religion that is based on belief, faith and hope which are not premise of scientific enquiry.


        One of the primary rationales for the negative correlation between trust in church

and religiosity is embedded in the teachings of religion that sometimes conflicting to

some of the fundamental philosophies of advanced level education – bachelors, masters

and doctor of philosophy degrees – that emphasize rationality, logical reasoning,

empiricism, verification of findings, impartiality, deductive and/or inductive reasoning,

and validity and reliability. One of the main tenets of religion is faith. And this is not not

empirically verifiable, testable, nor is it a reliable event that can be accepted on its

scientificness. Advanced training, on the other hand, whether in the area of social or

natural sciences, is guided on the verification of events. The acquisition of knowledge

has shifted from the religious dogma that existed in the earlier years to empiricism,

                                             456
verification of events, testing of knowledge, and removal of faith to explain unknown

phenomenon. Thus, many of the tenets of religious dogma have been proved incorrect,

inconsistent, unreliable, unverifiable, untestable and lacks scientific rigour; and this

fosters distrust in religious by some who uphold the scientific rationale of thinking –

critical and empirical thinking.


        Jamaicans reported a lower trust in organizations compared to educational

institutions, and the answer for this is quite simple. People’s trusts in institutions is partly

based on past performances of those organizations, credibility, results, perceived or allege

corruption in those entities, and their image in the public. A study conducted by Waller,

Bourne, Minto, & Rapley (2007, p.14) provided us with perception of Jamaicans on the

issue of institutional corruption, and Jamaica reported that four most corrupt institutions

are the police (80%), parish council (60%), customs (59%), and central government

(55%). Corruption affects trust (Uslaner), and this explain our generalized low trust in

organizations.    However, there are institutions (or organizations) such as churches

(82.8%) and schools (92.8%) that there are high trust in and this further justifies why

generalized trust in organizations are not lower than 67.9%. The high trust for schools is

embedded in the consistent of those institution, and the generally ‘good’ result of that

they having been producing over the years.




                                              457
458
Reference




            459
                                                                                    Chapter


                                                                                          11




Dispelling Some of the Myths on Unconventional Political Participation in Jamaica:
Gender, Age Disparity and Other Factors




       Introduction: Background

       How does the issue of unconventional political participation relate to trust? And is

it appropriate in any discussion on trust (or distrust)? The answer to these questions is

simple as low confidence in sociopolitical institutions translates itself into increasing

unconventional political participation. Low confidence indicates apathy in government

and its related entities; and because of this alienation between the citizenry and

government, the citizenry will act out their dissatisfactions by participating in roadblocks,

protest, online blogging, demonstration and revolts. Francis Fukuyama (1995) helps us to

understand this, when he says that trust is crucible to stable democracy; and this extends

to cooperation with the system of governance. The rationale behind the unconventional

political participation by the people is there way of expressing not only apathy, but this

sometimes is believed as the only medium by which they will be heard by governments

and related organizations. Mass involvement provides an audience that is stronger than a

single unit, and this helps to explain government’s willingness to response to this reality.

And citizenry use of this approach when they seek audience with their representatives or

entities that they believe has failed them – in which their expectations are not met. Thus,



                                            460
increased unconventional political participation is a display of distrust (low confidence)

which justifies the need for a study on this phenomenon.


       Ian Boxill et al. (2007), Carl Stone (1974), Munroe (2002, 1999), and Robert

Buddan (2001) are just a few scholars that have reviewed Caribbean literature on political

participation, with both Boxill et al. and Stone using survey research in their attempt to

unearth the culture of political participation in the region. Using actual statistics from

general elections, Carl Stone showed that, initially, participation in voting in the general

elections have been low and it has been steadily decreasing over the past two and one-

half decades – see Table 1 - (also see Boxill, et al. 2007, p.3). The voter turnout can be

used as an indicator of low confidence in political institutions, but this is within the

premise of orthodox political participation. Munroe refers to political participation as the

“[degree] to which citizens use their rights, such as the right to protest, right of free

speech, the right to vote, to influence or to get involved in political activity” (2002, p.4).




                                              461
Table 1: Political participation in General Election – Election Results – 1944-2002, %
Year                                      Accepted Ballots, %
1944                                    52.7
1949                                    63.8
1955                                    63.9
1959                                    65.4
1962                                    72.3
1967                                    81.5
1972                                    78.2
1976                                    84.5
1980                                    86.1
1983                                    28.9
1989                                    77.6
1993                                    66.7
1997                                    64.5
2002                                    -
Source: Statistical Yearbook of Jamaica (various years), STATIN



       He went on further and distinguish between conventional (orthodox) and

unconventional    political   participation    (or   unorthodox   political   participation).

Conventional participation addresses involvements that are embedded in norms and

traditions of the country. Unconventional political participation, on the hand,

encapsulates involvements that are outside of the norm (or the traditional approach) and

according to Munroe, they are “…more aggressive, more assertive, and may even break

the law” (Munroe, 2002, pp. 4-5). These include road blocks, peaceful marsh, blogging,

and demonstrations (Shingles, 1981; Martinez, 2005; Robnett, 2007; Munroe, 2002,

1999; Spehr and Dutt, 2004). Table 1 highlights the conventional approach to the study



                                              462
of political involvement, and has this is extensively researched. But, it is widely studied,

and so this research is not concerned about the orthodox political participation, as

unorthodox political participation has changed from its traditional approach to writing of

blogs and peaceful protest, and this is fundamentally driving this study. This chapter is a

study of unconventional political participation as well an identification of germane

factors that influence this behaviour.


       According to Munroe (2002), “…conventional political participation is declining,

unconventional political participation as a type of political behaviour is increasing”, and

this explains the number of roadblocks, demonstration, political blogging, peaceful

protest and violent protest. Unconventional political participation dates back to slavery,

and this has helped to shape many contemporary Caribbean states. The difference in the

twenty-first century is the frequency and the mode of these activities. Most of

unconventional activities in contemporary Caribbean societies are peaceful protest – such

as placard bearing individuals, strikes, stick outs, ‘go-but-slow’ (i.e. on the job but

working less than is expected), online blogging, writing to the media, calling talk shows,

and sometimes there are ‘unruly’ demonstrations for example the gas riot in Jamaica in

1997 in which properties were destroyed because the citizenry was disappointed with the

increased prices of gases; 1938 riots in Jamaica; riots in Haiti, Cuban revolution in 1958,

and the protest of the 1960s – including the Walter Rodney riot of 1968. Contemporary

Jamaica is shaped by some of the unconventional political activities that emerged due to

past actions of political parties in the 1960s. One scholar reviewing what he refers to as

‘Walter Rodney 1968 Revisited’ layed some premise for unconventional participation,

when he says:


                                            463
       In June and July 1966 the homes of over 3000 people were bulldozed by the
       government of the Jamaica Labour Party (Jamaica Council for Human Rights
       1968, 2). Following Selassie’s visit the bulldozing of Western Kingston’s slums
       continued. The bulldozers protected by armed soldiers, became hated objects and
       they symbolized the creation of the modern low-income housing estates, access to
       which was based on political party affiliation. The People’s National Party later
       responded with its own residential enclaves and this marked the transition of party
       tribalism into its armed phase. Political protests against this kind of turf politics,
       which the youths called ‘politricks’, saw the discrediting among a minority of
       radicalized youth and intellectuals of political parties as vehicles for social and
       political change. So in 1966-67 political violence entered its modern phase with
       the formalization of garrison’s constituencies, and fierce trade union and party
       rivalry led in October 1966 to the declaration of a state of emergency in Western
       Kingston (Lewis, 1998, p.13)


       Carl Stone in one of his many studies titled ‘Class, Race and Political Behaviour’

explains that the economic deprivation of a particular class in Jamaica accounts for the

atmosphere of militancy and by extension protect and other forms of unconventional

participation. The aforementioned discussion creates the illusion that unconventional

political participation be it peaceful or otherwise was limited to the geopolitical space of

Jamaica, but this is the furthest from the social reality. Lewis contextualizes this aptly,


       Yet the decolonization process in the Caribbean had been relatively peaceful, but
       was paralleled by violent struggles elsewhere. Colonial wars had taken a heavy
       toll in Algeria’s struggle against France in which a million people had been killed;
       more wars in Southern Africa were in the making against Portuguese rule in
       Angola, Mozambique and Guinea Bissau; and the political elite of South Africa
       apartheid was accelerating its brutality within Southern Africa as a whole (Lewis,
       1998, p.46)

       Although Carl Stone and Rupert Lewis have provided some insight into

unconventional political participation (also see Munroe, 1999, pp. 33-35) and particular

rationale for their beginnings, unconventional political participation was also occurring in

the United States in the 1960s. The peaceful protest of Mrs. Rosetta Parks when she sat

at the front of the bus when blacks were designated to second class status in the United


                                             464
States was the beginning of other unconventional participation. This led Reverend Dr.

Martin Luther King to many peaceful demonstrations; and the birth of the civil rights

movement.


Table 2: Number of Unconventional Political participation – roadblocks, 1986-1997
Year     1986   1987    1989     1989      1990      1991      1992     1993    1994


No       23       29       31          31     42      42       45       29         173


1995                            1996                        1997


202                             185                         207


       Source: Trevor Munroe (1999, p118)


       While writing this chapter (June 6, 2008), workers of the Jamaica Urban Transit

Company (JUTC) were demonstrating because the company’s executive board has

decided to many some 100 of them redundant. Among the reasons that explain the

dwindling of traditional political participation and unconventional political involvement

are corruption, inequality, injustices, perception of right or wrong, low accountability,

low integrity and credibility, economic discontent, malpractice, wastage of public

resources, low result and ‘bad’ intent and motivation. This reality is not limited to the

Jamaica as this experience is widespread across the geopolitical space of the globe. The

extent of a particular typology of unconventional involvement may not be the same in

Jamaica like the rest of the world – including America, Japan or United Kingdom.


       With the exception of the boycotted general elections of 1983 by the People’s

National Party (PNP), since Jamaica gained independence in 1962, there has been some


                                            465
fluctuation, but primarily a steady decline in electorate turnout at the polls (EOJ). In

contrast, however, while there has been a decline in such conventional forms of political

participation, unconventional forms of political participation are on the rise (Munroe,

1999). An explanation of this phenomenon has been put forward by local researchers

such as Jamaica’s Carl Stone, Figueroa, Donna Hope, and Trevor Munroe. Two of the

most prominent rationales are a lack of efficiency and effectiveness in the legal route to

dealing with grouses, and the belief that protests garner more media coverage and hence

swifter response from politicians, leading to speedier and more favourable results. The

aim of this study, however, is not to assess the shift in forms of political behaviour, but

instead to examine the different demographic variables that may impact or have impacted

unconventional political actions by individuals.


       The characteristics of unconventional political participators have not been

thoroughly studied in the Caribbean. It is with this in mind that this research seeks to

identify those characteristics which have or may have a positive or negative correlation

with unconventional participation in Jamaica, as we seek to dispel those myths that have

been deep rooted in our generational thoughts about those who participate in such

political activities. In addition to the aforementioned issues, we also seek to investigate

whether unconventional political participation is affected by trust.


       Conceptual Framework


       In forwarding an explanation that justifies unconventional political participation,

Munroe (1999, p.34) believes that voter ‘de-alignment’ is an indication of voter apathy

with the political process and that this is transmitted though citizenry involvement in


                                            466
protest, road blocks, demonstration, and online blogging. Economic deterioration and

social infrastructural deficiencies are all a part of the reasons for increases in

unconventional political participation (see for example, Munroe, 1999, p.34). Some

people and institutions use protest – example human rights bodies, lobbyists, and private

citizenry - to promote and widen their claim for change, betterment and reach as these are

more effective in public attention, and in the process solicit a positive response from

government. It should be noted here that economic activity of people is a critical

component in their social lives (Francis Fukuyama, 1995, p.7); and trust is the crucible

property that binds the society together. It is inherent degree of trust in the society

explains civic engagement (Fukuyama, 1995; Covey, & Merrill, 2006); and when his

distrust begins to be fashioned and intensify in the society, unconventional political

participation often times results as a response to societal, interpersonal and organizational

distrust.


        According to Francis Fukuyama (1995, p.33), trust is crucible to social capital and

the health of a society, and that a stable democracy, cooperation, production, economic

efficiency and civic engagement are due to trust. Ergo, when people begin to question

someone’s intent, motive, integrity, honesty, and the credibility of others, they are likely

to become distrusting and this influence economic and social relations, cooperativeness,

sense of duty to others, and communication. Thus, trust is that vital ingredient that

explains industrial structure, and involvement in political institutions.           “In any

meaningful democracy, the interests and wishes of the different members of society have

to articulated and represented through political parties and other kinds of organized

political groups” (Fukuyama, 1995, p.357), this emphasize an aspect to how citizenry are


                                            467
likely to become involved in unconventional activities as they believe that their demands,

wishes and expectations are not met by the institutions that are legitimized to do so. Thus,

unconventional political participation is a ‘break down’ in sociability and lowering of

social capital as people do not believe that they should cooperate with the socioeconomic

structure. The Haitian revolution, the French revolution, Cuban revolution, civil unrest,

protest, demonstrations, anarchy, Rodney King riot, and intolerance with the political

structure are just some of the display that embodies social ills within governance,

questioning the administration of the justice system, and the ungovernable nature of

political climate. Unconventional political participation erodes social capital as people

are cynical and suspicious of other’s motives and intent, which is the driving force behind

protest, demonstration, and civil uprising. According to Francis Fukuyama, “a low social

capital country is not only likely to have small, weak, and inefficient companies; it will

also suffer from pervasive corruption of its public officials and ineffective public

administration” (1995, p.358).


       The shift in political participation from the more traditional types (such as voting

behaviour) to those that are more rebellious, uncivil and that may sometimes be violent

are not indigenous to Jamaica or for that matter to the Caribbean as these also occur in

America – Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King peaceful protest, Rev Jessie Jackson’s

involvement in peaceful protest – France – the French revolution; China - demonstrations

and protest in China, uprising in Zimbabwe and Kenya; and demonstrations in Germany

are just a few of these unfolding in different geopolitical space throughout the world.

However, it is the demographics of those who indulge in unconventional participation

which vary. Some of these characteristics include: gender, age, income, educational


                                            468
attainment, ethnicity, marital status, and religion. A Caribbean scholar, Trevor Munroe

(1999), notes that unconventional political participation is a practice of urban residents,

and youth. There are studies done in different geopolitical spaces including India (Spehr

and Dutt, 2004), United States of America (Shingles, 1981; Robnett, 2007), Canada

(Blais et. al., 2002), and China (Cai, 2008), that have identified a number of variables as

influencing unorthodox political participation.


       Income and Education


       It is argued that high income earners in the western society are more prone to

unconventional political activism (Spehr and Dutt, 2004), along with the more educated.

However, Munroe (1999) explicitly states that such a notion contradicts what is found to

be true in the Jamaican context; that is, it is those who are less financially endowed who

are more likely and who generally partake in non-traditional forms of political activities.

The same is said by () who dismisses the said notion, stating that non-traditional forms of

political activities are usually orchestrated by the poorer and less educated individuals

within the Jamaican society. On the contrary, this is not the same for some other

countries. Patterson found that in Brazil and Chile the protestors were not necessarily the

poorest in society, but instead the more affluent that had the resources and interest in

institutionalizing change. This is not surprising if one were to compare his findings to

other parts of the world, such as China (Cai, 2008), India (Spehr and Dutt, 2004), and

Latin America (Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and Peru) (Klesner, 2007) as, it is also the

higher income earners who are more inclined to participate in protests and roadblocks, in

comparison to those who earn closer to the bottom of the wage scale.



                                           469
        Age


        Like income, the propensity to participate in unconventional political activities

varies (but not significantly) from one country to another. In India, younger persons are

more likely to participate than the older cohorts (Spehr and Dutt, 2004). The same holds

true for (). While in a study conducted by Martinez (2005), older Latinos of Mexican,

Puerto Rican and Cuban origin were more inclined to be unorthodox political activists.

The variance in findings is suggested to be as a result of a lack of interest in politics by

the younger generation coupled with political disengagement and disenfranchisement

(Blais et al., (2002)


        Gender


        Spehr and Dutt (2004) found that there is no substantive difference between the

levels of participation across genders in India. This was a surprising finding, given the

traditional nature of the country (Spehr and Dutt, 2004). Robnett (2007) on the other

hand, had different results when she assessed participation of African American women;

she found that women were 51.1% less likely to participate than men. However, when

this variable is added to other variables such as collective identity and educational

attainment, Robnett found that among the group that had a strong collective identity, men

were more likely to partake in unconventional activities. This suggests that variables

should be assessed primarily together rather than singularly in order to get a clearer

picture of the impacting demographics.


        Ethnicity

                                            470
       In countries where there are large groups of persons of varying ethnic and racial

backgrounds the inclination to participate in unconventional forms of political activities

tends to differ. As is seen in the Latino case studied by Martinez (2005), assessing the

issue of ethnicity as a variable, requires one to look at citizenship status, the degree of

power and wealth attained by the minority group, and in particular any factor which

could be negatively impacted if they were to participate in a roadblock or demonstration.

However, while the Latinos studied were less inclined to behave unconventionally partly

for fear of losing their jobs or being deported (Martinez, 2005), the African Americans

were more inclined to participate (Shingles, 1981).




                                          Method



Sample



This survey was administered by the Centre of Leadership and Governance (CLG),
University of the West Indies, Mona, Kingston, in May 2007. The sample was randomly
selected from the fourteen parishes of Jamaica, using the descriptive research design. The
sample frame is representative of the population based on gender and ethnicity. A total of
1,338 respondents aged 16 years and older were interviewed for this study, with a
sampling error of approximately ± 3%, at the 95% confidence level (i.e. CI). The
average age for the sample is 34 years and 11 months ± 13 yrs and 7 months. The results
that are presented here are based solely on Jamaicans’ opinion of their political
orientation. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data.



Measures

                                            471
Sex, ‘X’. This variable is being male or female. It is a binary variable, where 1=female
and 0=male.



Area of Residence, ‘A R ’. This variable is the parish in which the individual lives while
the study was being conducted. It is a dummy variable variable.

     AreaRes1                         1= Kingston and St. Andrew, 0=Other43



Subjective Social Class, ‘S’. This is people’s perception of their social and economic
position in life, based on social stratification.

     Class1                           1=Middle class, 0=Other

     Class2                           1=Upper class, 0=Other

The reference group is ‘Lower Classes



Ethnicity, ‘R’.

         Race1                     1=Caucasian, 0=Other

         Race2                     1=Black and Brown, 0=Other

The reference group is Chinese, Indians, et cetera.



Educational Level, ‘E’.

         Secondary, 0=Other

         Post-secondary, 0=Other

         University, and professional training, 0=Other

The reference group is primary and below education.


43
  Jamaica is subdivided into fourteen parishes of which there are Kingston and St. Andrew. The Others
are – St. Thomas; Portland; St. Mary; St. Ann; Trelawny; St. James; Hanover; Westmoreland; St. Elizabeth;
Manchester, Clarendon, and St. Catherine.

                                                  472
 Confidence Index, ‘CFI’. The CFI = Σ fi .c i , where f i indicates the frequency of the
occurrence of the event, and c i denotes the event. F i ranges from 1=no confidence, 2=a
little confidence, 3=some confidence, and 4=a lot of confidence. (See Appendix IV for
extended listing of the ci).



Trust in Government, ‘TG’. This is people’s perception of their ‘trust’ in other people. It
will be a dummy variable, where 1=Yes, and 0=No.



Interpersonal Trust, ‘TI’. This is people’s perception of their ‘trust’ in other people. It
will be a dummy variable, where 1=Yes, and 0=No.




Unconventional Political Participation, ‘UPP’. This variable is defined as political
involvements which are outside of the traditional measure of political involvement.
These include protest, demonstration, road blockages, boycotts and participation in
organized strikes. (see extended list in Appendix I). The Cronbach α being 0.701 for the
5-item scale, which are used to constitute this Index. The final variable is an ordinal one
which is classified as low, moderate and high.



Age group, ‘A i’ is an ordinal variable that classifies age in three categories. These are as
follows - youth (ages l6 to 25 years), other adults (ages 26 to 59 years) and elderly (ages
60+ years).

        1= Other adults,          0=Other

        1=Elderly,                0=Other

        Reference group is youth



                                             Hypotheses



General Hypothesis: UPP =ƒ (TG, TI, A i , CFI, E, R, A R, X)....................................... [1]

                                                  473
474
       Findings: Socio-demographic Results

       Of the 1,338 respondents interviewed for the study, 55.7% are females (n=723)
compared to 44.3% males (n=574), with a response rate of 96.7%. The average age of the
sample is 35 years ± 14 years. Substantially more of the sample classify themselves as
being a part of the lower social class (59.0%, n=766), 36.6% are of the middle class
(n=476) compared to 4.4% who are in the upper class (n=57). The findings reveal that
most of the respondents have attained the secondary level education (69.0%, n=892),
26.2% (n=339) have acquired post-secondary training, 3.1% (n=40) primary or
preparatory level education compared to 1.5% have no formal education whatsoever.
Concurrently, Trelawny is the only parish with the least number of interviewees, 3.8%
(n=50), with the other area of residence showing a similar percentage of respondents.
Another demographic variable of importance to this research is ethnicity/race, 90.0% of
the interviewed are Blacks and Browns, with 8.0% being Whites (or Caucasians)
compared to 2.0% who indicate Others such as Chinese, Indians, and Other races.

       Of the sampled respondents, 33.3% were youth, 60.5% other adults and 6.2%
were elderly. Marginally more sampled youth population was females (5.2%). (see Table
1). On the contrary, less than 2.7% of the sampled population who were other adults and
elderly were males compared to females.           In regard to unconventional political
participation, 84.8% of the sampled respondents (1,328) revealed a low unconventional
political participation, with 6.9% reported a moderate participation compared to 8.4%
who indicated a high conventional political participation - this means that less than 2 out
of 10 Jamaicans indicated that they had been involved in unconventional political
participation.   Disaggregating the unconventional political participation by gender
revealed that 18.7% of the sampled males reported that they have participated to some
extent in unconventional political activities compared to 12.3% of the female
respondents. At the highest degree of unconventional political participation as indicated
by the sampled respondents, the ratio is 2 males to every female. The disparity is smaller
at the moderate level as there are about 1.1 males to 1 female.




                                            475
Table 1: Findings - Demographic Variables, N=1,338

       Characteristics                                      Percentage

                                                     Male         Female
Age group:
 Youth                                               30.3         35.5
  Other Adults                                       62.0         59.3
  Elderly                                            7.7          5.1
  N=1297
Subjective Social Class:
  Working                                            59.8         58.7
   Middle                                            35.2         37.2
   Upper                                              5.0          4.2
  N=1259
Ethnicity:
   Blacks                                            75.8         77.9
  Caucasian                                          9.8          6.4
  Mixed (Brown)                                      11.7         14.4
  Other                                              2.6          1.2
  N=1292
Individual Educational Level:
  No formal                                          2.0          1.2
  Primary                                            21.6         16.8
  Secondary                                          33.8         35.5
  Post Secondary                                     19.0         18.4
   Tertiary                                          23.6         28.2
  N=1251
Unconventional Political Participation:
   Low                                               81.3         87.8
   Moderate                                          7.4          6.3
   High                                              11.3         6.0
   N=1287
Interpersonal Trust
   Yes                                               62.0         63.4
   No                                                38.0         36.6
  N=1228
Trust in government
   Yes                                               89.5         93.7
  No                                                 10.5         6.3
  N=1200
Employment
  Unemployed                                         5.2          5.2
  Employed                                           83.2         78.6
  Self-employed                                      11.5         16.3
  N=1117

                                          476
       Based on table 1, men are more likely to be involved unconventionally in political

events than their female counterparts (see Table 1.1). The association between the two

aforementioned variables is weak one χ2 (2) =13.776, ρ value =0.001 < 0.05, with single

correlation coefficient being 0.103. The participation rate in unconventional events is 1.5

times more for males compared to females. However, when different unconventional

political activities were disaggregated by gender of respondents, the findings were not

necessarily the similar to that of general unconventional political involvement. We found

that men are approximately twice as involved in unconventional political activities

compared to their female counterparts with respect to the ‘blocking of roads’ and ‘violent

demonstrations’. On the other hand, the least gender disparity occurred in the area of

peaceful demonstration (i.e. 1.2 men to every woman). The findings show that gender is

explanatory factor for unconventional political participation in Jamaica. (See Tables 1.2-

1.5)




Table 1.2

Percentage of Unconventional Political Participation (i.e. block roads) by Gender

                                                            Gender

                                                     Male            Female

Unconventional Political Participation:

       Yes                                           11.0            5.4


       No                                            89.0            94.6

       Count                                         566             717

Χ2 (1) =13.264, p value = 0.001, phi = 0.102

                                           477
Table 1.3

Percentage of Unconventional Political Participation (i.e. strike) by Gender

                                                            Gender
                                                    Male             Female

Unconventional Political Participation:

       Yes                                          17.4             10.7


       No                                           82.6             89.3

       Count                                        568              718

Χ2 (1) =12.070, p value = 0.001, phi = 0.097




Table 1.3

Percentage of Unconventional Political Participation (i.e. organized boycott) by Gender

                                                            Gender

                                                    Male             Female

Unconventional Political Participation:

       Yes                                          10.5             7.4


       No                                           89.5             92.6

       Count                                        564              717

Χ2 (1) =3.727, p value = 0.034, phi = 0.054




                                           478
Table 1.4

Percentage of Unconventional Political Participation (i.e. peaceful demonstration) by
Gender

                                                           Gender

                                                    Male            Female

Unconventional Political Participation:

       Yes                                          22.4            18.2


       No                                           77.6            81.8

       Count                                        568             718

Χ2 (1) =3.347, p value = 0.039, phi = 0.051



Table 1.5

Percentage of Unconventional Political Participation (i.e. demonstration with some
violence) by Gender

                                                           Gender

                                                    Male            Female

Unconventional Political Participation:

       Yes                                          6.7             3.5

       No                                           93.3            96.5

       Count                                        567             712

Χ2 (1) =6.862, p value = 0.009, phi = 0.073

       From table 2.1, there is an association between age group of Jamaicans and

unconventional political participation - Χ2 (1) =18.503, p value = 0.001, cc= 0.117. The

direct relationship between the two aforementioned variables is a weak one (11.5%, i.e.

cc=0.117).   We will now examine the relationship. Of the 9.8% of youth who are
                                           479
involved in unconventional political activities, 4.8% were involved at the greatest extent.

As indicated in table 2.1, the youth were the least involved in unconventional political

events, with the elderly being the most involved. However at the moderate degree of

unconventional political participation, other adults were the most involved. The findings

showed that youth are less involved in unconventional acts than other age cohorts. It

should be observed from table 2.1 that other adults were approximately twice more

involved at the most frequent level compared to youth, with the elderly participating at

the same rate over the youth as other adults.


Table 2.1



Percentage of Unconventional Political Participation by Age group

                                                       Age group

                                                Youth Other adults   Elderly       Total

Unconventional Political Participation:

       Low                                      90.2     82.5        78.3          84.8

       Moderate                                 5.0       7.3        12.0          6.9

       High                                     4.8      10.2        9.6           8.4

       Count                                    441      804         83            1328

Χ2 (1) =18.503, p value = 0.001, cc= 0.117




                                             480
       In wanting to thoroughly understand the disparity in unconventional political

participation based on age groups, the researcher disaggregated the figures by gender.

We found that the statistical associated that was observed in table 1 can be explained by

females [Χ2 (4) =13.740, p value = 0.008, cc= 0.137], and not for males – [Χ2 (4) =7.375,

p value = 0.117].




Table 2.2(i)



Percentage of Unconventional Political Participation by Age group by Sex (male)

                                                   Age group

                                            Youth Other adults    Elderly         Total

Unconventional Political Participation:

       Low                                  87.8      78.7        77.3            81.3

Male: Moderate                              5.8        8.0        9.1             7.4

       High                                 6.4       13.4        13.6            11.3



       Count                                172        352        44              568

Χ2 (4) =7.375, p value = 0.117




                                          481
Table 2.2(ii)



Percentage of Unconventional Political Participation by Age group by Sex (female)

                                                     Age group

                                              Youth Other adults   Elderly     Total

Unconventional Political Participation:

       Low                                    92.5     85.7        78.4        87.8

Female:Moderate                               3.9      6.8         16.2        6.3

       High                                   3.5      7.5         5.4         6.0



       Count                                  255      427         37          719

Χ2 (1) =13.740, p value = 0.008, cc= 0.137




                                             482
        The level of unconventional political participation is the most among people who

do not have any formal education (i.e. 40%), with the least involved of the sample being

those people who have had secondary level of education (12.1%). There is a statistical

association between unconventional political participation and educational level of

sampled population - Χ2 (8) = 21.59, p value = 0.006, cc=0.129. Among those who

reported being involved in unconventional political participation, tertiary students or

graduands were the second most involved (20.6%), which is second to those who had no

formal education.        The disparity in ‘high’ involvement in unconventional political

participation between the different educational levels is great as without formal education

being at least 2.8 times more involved than those in primary, secondary, post-secondary

or tertiary level education.


Table 3.1

Percentage of Unconventional Political Participation by Educational Level

                                                                Educational level

                                      No formal          Pri. 44       Sec.         Post-sec      Ter.

Unconventional Political Participation:

        Low                                 60.0         86.7          87.9              84.7         79.4

        Moderate                            20.0         5.8           4.9               7.6          9.4

        High                                20.0         7.5           7.2               7.6          11.2

        Count                               20           240            446              236          339

Χ2 (8) =21.59, p value = 0.006, cc=0.129




44
  Pri. Denotes Primary level of education; Sec. represents Secondary level; Post-sec indicates post
secondary, and Ter. means Tertiary level education

                                                   483
The findings revealed that there was no statistical association between unconventional

political participation and employment status - Χ2 (8) =4.940, p value = 0.295. Embedded

in this result is the fact that one’s employment status does not influence the person’s

choice to be involved in unconventional political activities.


Table 4



Percentage of Unconventional Political Participation by Employment Status (n=1147)

                                                      Employment Status

                                          Unemployed Employed          Self-employed

Unconventional Political Participation:

       Low                                    93.4              84.2       87.6

       Moderate                               3.3               7.2        5.0

       High                                   3.3               8.5        7.5

       Count                                  61                925        161

Χ2 (8) =4.940, p value = 0.295




                                            484
Multivariate Analysis

         We have identified a number of predisposed variables from the literature in an
attempt to identify those that are factors of ‘unconventional political participation’.
Based on Table 4, we used logistic regression to examine the possible factors from the
list of predisposed variables:




UPP = α + β 1 TG + β 2 TI + β 3 A i + β 4 A R + β 5 E + β 6 R + β 7 X + β 8 CFI .............……... [2]




Thus, using data, we found the following to be factors of equation [2], which gives the
model (i.e. Eqn. [3]):




UPP = α + β 1 TG + β 2 TI + β 3 A i + β 5 E + β 7 X.......................................................……... [3]




         Using the data to test the model in Eqn. [2], we found that there are five of the
seven predisposed factors explain unconventional political participation in Jamaica.
They are trust in government, interpersonal trust, age group, educational level, and sex.
The model explains 7.9% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variation in unconventional political
participation. Based on Table 4, there is an inverse relationship between unconventional
political participation and interpersonal trust as well as sex.                       Concurrently, positive
associations were observed between unconventional political participation and –
education, age group and trust in government. Of the five statistically significant factors
to be derived from the predisposed variables, the three most influential ones in
descending order are (1) other adults (Wald statistic = 12.14); (2) trust in government
(Wald statistic=9.95), and (3) tertiary level educational attainment (Wald statistic = 9.57).
(see Table 4, below).

                                                       485
          The findings revealed that one who has had tertiary level education in reference to
primary and below education is 2.2 times [Odds or Exp (B)] more likely to participate in
unconventional political activities. With regard to other adults in referent to youth, they
are 2.1 times more likely to be involved in unconventional political acts, with the elderly
in reference to youth are 2.4 times more likely to be involved in activities which are
politically unconventional events. Furthermore, we found that females are 0.67 times less
likely to participate in unconventional political activities when compared to their male
counterparts. This was not the case for interpersonal trust as individuals who trust other
people are 0.62 times less likely to become involved in unconventional political acts. A
similar finding was revealed for someone who trusts the government as he/she is 2.4
times more likely to become involved in unconventional political acts than another
person who is not trusting of the government.




          Having identified the five factors that explain unconventional political
participation in Jamaica, we are concerned about the nature of these variables (i.e. are
they factors or predictors of unconventional political participation). We will test this with
the below equation:




Prob (event) = ez / (1 + e z) .............................................................................................[4.1]



where Prob represents the probability of event (i.e. unconventional political

participation), and


Z = α + β 1 TG + β 2 TI + β 3 A i + β5 E + β 7 X.......................................…….........................
[5.1]



          Z = -1.914 + 0.87TG – 0.487TI + 0.734A1i + 0.888A2i                                     +   0.801E – 0.396X
                          ........[5.2]


                                                             486
          Assume that the an individual trust the government, trust other person, the age of
                           the person is within the age group of other adults (i.e. 40), with
                           secondary education and being a female



          Z     =      -1.914       + 0.87 – 0.487 + 0.734                                +     0(A)       +     0(E)          –
                                    0.396....................................[5.3]



          Z = -1.193



Prob (event) = e(-1.193) / [1 + e (-1.193)]............................................................................[4.2]

Prob (event) = 0.303309967/ [1 + 0.303309967] = 0.23




This means that the model [i.e. Eqn. (3)] is not a predictive one, which that the factors are
only associated with unconventional political trust and, therefore, they are not
determinants.



          Discussion and Conclusion



          This study built a single index to capture unconventional political participation - a

single index that includes blocking traffic in protest, participating in organized strikes,

participating in organized boycott, peaceful and violent demonstrations. Primarily the

study found that 15.2% of Jamaica reported to participated in some form of

unconventional political activities over their lifetime.                                 Males are involved in

unconventional political events compared to their female counterparts, which is in


                                                            487
keeping with the literature. One of the contradictions of this study is the disparity

between itself and the findings of the literature (i.e. Trevor Munroe) as the group to

report the most involvement in unconventional political activities were the elderly (22%)

compared to other adults (18%) and the youth (10%).            However our findings were

consistently with others studies that found that people of other ages are more involved in

unorthodox political activities compared to their younger aged counterparts.


       The literature review did not stipulate the extent of the trust (or distrust) of the sex

based on unconventional political participation, and this research added this aspect. We

found that females are 0.5 times less involved in unconventional activities with reference

to males (Exp(B) = 0.479). This should come as no surprise as early socialization of sex

have male roaming and becoming involved in many outdoor activities while the females

are encourage to state indoor, and to become domesticated for the family. While aspects

of this are changing, men are predominantly the ones who are expected and are more

willing to go protesting, demonstrating and get involved in violent demonstrations.


       The literature speaks to the education being a factor of unconventional political

participation, which was concurred by this research. The current study found that

individual who reported the highest level of education – tertiary level education – are

more likely to being involved in unconventional political events with reference to

primary and below education compared to secondary or those who have or those who

attending post-secondary level education. Furthermore, tertiary level graduands are 1.3

times more likely to becoming involved in unconventional activities with referent to

primary or below education.



                                             488
       The literature spoke of the relation between unorthodox political participation and

trust (or confidence) in government or in other person; and this research was no different

as it agrees with the findings of previous studies. The current work shows that a negative

relation exists between interpersonal trust and unorthodox political participation (B= -

0.487); and that those who trust other (i.e. Interpersonal trust) persons are 0.422 times

less likely to get involved in unconventional political activities. Trust in government, on

the other hand, is positively associated with unorthodox political events such as online

blogging, protest and demonstrations. We examine the extent of this unconventional

political participation, and find that those who reported that they trust government are 2.4

times more likely to become involved in unorthodox activities compared to those who do

not trust government.


       In concluding, the most significant factor of unconventional political participation

of the selected predisposed variables is age of respondents followed by educational

attainment (or level), trust in government and lastly by sex of respondents. We now can

say uncategorically that trust in other and in government is among the reasons for

increase unorthodox political behaviour of Jamaicans. Distrust (or low confidence) in

government is crucible factor that explains unorthodox political participation; and that

low interpersonal distrust is explaining a proportion of the unorthodox political

involvement of Jamaicans. Given that the level of interpersonal distrust is so high (i.e. 4

out of 10 Jamaicans trust each other), people believe that government has some bad intent

and motive, and that government’s credibility and integrity are questionable; and that

suspicion and cynicism are driving the increase unorthodox behaviour of Jamaicans.




                                            489
Reference

Blais, A., Gidengil, E., Nadeau, R., Nevitte, N. (2002) “Generational change and the
       decline of political participation: the case of voter turnout in Canada”.

Booth, J. and Seligson, M. (2005) “Political legitimacy and participation in Costa Rica:
      evidence of arena shopping” Political Research quarterly, 58 (4), 537.

Cai, Y. (2008) “Social conflicts and mode of action in china”. The China Journal, 59, 89.

Electoral Office of Jamaica. Elections: A summary of Major Electoral events
       http://www.eoj.com.jm/elections/elect_sum.htm

Klesner, J. (2007) “Social capital and political participation in Latin America: evidence
       from Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and Peru”. Latin American Research Review, 42
       (2).

Lewis, R.C. (1998). Walter Rodney 1968 Revisited, 2nd ed. Kingston: Canoe Press
       University of the West Indies.

Martinez, L. (2005) “Yes we can: Latino participation in unconventional politics” Social
       Forces, 84 (1), 135.

Munroe, T. (2002). An Introduction to Politics. Lectures for First-Year Students, 3rd.
    Kingston: Canoe.

Munroe, T. (1999). Renewing democracy into the Millennium. The Jamaican Experience
    in Perspective. Kingston: The University of the West Indies Press.

Patterson, E. () Religious activity and political participation: the Brazilian and Chilean
        case

Robnett, B. (2007) “Does collective identity really matter? African American
conventional and unconventional political participation”.

Shingles, R. (1981) “Black consciousness and political participation: the missing link”.
       The American Political Science Review, 75 (1), 76-91.

Spehr, S. and Dutt, N. (2004) “Exploring protest participation in India: Evidence from the
       1996 world values survey”. African and Asian Studies, 3 (3-4)




                                           490
Appendix I



      Blocked traffic in protest?
      Participated in an organized ‘strike’?
      Participated in an organized ‘boycott’?
      Participated in a peaceful march or public demonstration?
      Participated in a march or public demonstration that involved some violence?




                                          491
Table 4: Logistic Regression Model of Unconventional Political Participation by selected predisposed variables
                                  B      S.E.    Wald       df       Sig.     Exp(B)         95.0% C.I.
                                                                                               EXP(B)
                                                                                          Lower     Upper
Step 1(a)   Secondary              .007   .265     .001        1       .978      1.007       .600     1.693
            Post Secondary         .227   .291     .608        1       .435      1.255       .709     2.221
            Tertiary               .801   .259    9.571        1       .002      2.228      1.341     3.701
            Other Adults           .734   .211   12.144        1       .000      2.083      1.379     3.147
            Elderly                .888   .380    5.461        1       .019      2.430      1.154     5.117
            Sex                   -.396   .174    5.163        1       .023       .673       .479      .947
            Trust In Gov’t         .870   .276    9.950        1       .002      2.387      1.390     4.099
            Race1                 -.815   .667    1.493        1       .222       .443       .120     1.636
            Race2                 -.277   .564     .241        1       .623       .758       .251     2.289
            Area_Res1              .314   .235    1.792        1       .181      1.370       .864     2.170
            Confidence            -.029   .187     .023        1       .879       .972       .673     1.403
            Index
            Interpersonal         -.487   .192    6.421        1       .011       .615       .422      .896
            Trust
            Constant            -1.914    .823    5.408        1       .020       .147
       -2 Log Likelihood = 891.54
       Nagelkerke R square 0.079




                                                             492
                                                                                           Chapter

                                                                                                 12



Political Participation and Trust, and their Correlates



        Background

        Literature on political participation has been substantially on voting behaviour (Carl

Stone, 1974; Trevor Munroe 1999, 2002; Mark Figueroa).             However, the phenomenon of

political participation extends beyond voting behaviour to peaceful demonstrations, all form of

protests, political blogging, political discussions in the media, and so on. Trevor Munroe (2002)

makes the distinction between orthodox political participation (i.e. conventional political

participation) – this includes voting, electoral matters, - and that of unorthodox political

participation (i.e. unconventional political participation) – demonstrations, protests, political

blogging, political media discussion.        Before we commence any examination of political

participation, we must understand what constitutes political participation. Political participation

is byproduct of political behaviour, and so an appreciation of this construct will help us to better

classify the constituents of political participation.


        Munroe’s definition of political behaviour will be used through this study. Political

behaviour, according to Trevor Munroe speaks of the actions of individuals in regards to

authority – including the schools, clubs, churches, civic organizations – and government, which

includes parliament and its related institutions. Hence, it is easy to understand why voting

behaviour is used as the measure of political participation an indicator of political behaviour

because voting is critical to democracy; and that, democracy established stable societies, and



                                                  493
provides an understanding of governance of that society.          Voting is medium of political

behaviour is pivotal as it provides the basis upon which all modern democratic societies are

fashioned, structure and becomes operative in contemporary nations.                Thus, political

participation is a component of political behaviour; and it is major in the former phenomenon.

Powell, Bourne, & Waller (2007, p.7) argued that one’s political behaviour is derived from

‘political culture’. They ‘political culture’ is the shared consensus – which include orientations,

beliefs, customs, and preconceptions which are shared by it members.


       The issue of trust in civic engagement ergo is evident and critical to the process of

political behaviour. Powell, Bourne, & Waller wrote that “A ‘democratic’ or ‘civic’ culture,

then, is a political culture in which there is a widespread consensus on, and endorsement of,

basic norms of democracy” (2007, p.7). All Jamaican political scientists, despite the importance

of trust to democracy and in particular political behaviour, to date a dearth of literature exist on

the two phenomena (see Trevor Munroe, Carl Stone, Brian Meeks, Rupert Lewis, Lawrence A.

Powell). In a recently conducted study that was done by a group of Caribbean scholars – mainly

drawn from Department of Sociology, Psychology and Social Work, the University of the West

Indies, Mona Campus, Kingston, Jamaica – the researchers omitted any examination on trust and

political culture. Despite this weakness, however, they studied the issue of trust and social

capital (Boxill et al. 2007, pp.151-168); and conventional political participation including

determinants of this participation without en examination of any form of trust ( pp.169-185).

Thus, this study examines political participation and trust and political participation’s correlates

from an empirical perspective.     As such, we seek to build a model that will address this

phenomenon.


       Conceptual Framework

                                                494
        Political participation is seen as morally good because it speaks to the nature of the

individuals who participate and the type of system that triggers this participation. Indeed there

are different postulations of political participation. This article therefore, is aimed at exploring

trust and political participation while giving credence to the various factors that are connected to

both concepts. In doing this a comprehensive analysis of both will be undertaken in order to

exhaust their significance while accepting the view that trust is relevant and to an extent

intertwined to political participation.


        According to Klesner 2007 the general definition of participation spans four groups of

factors that shape this attitude and beaviour of participating politically: resources, political

values, social capital and institutional opportunities and constraints. However, in order to dissect

the issue of political participation, we cannot divorce ourselves from the pertinent issues of

social capital and democracy which is the nexus of any discussion of political participation. In

examining the issue of political participation, it is argued that it is intertwined with social capital.

This then calls for a dissecting of the issue before delving into a pertinent discussion. In doing

so, one can draw on the assistance of (Putnam 1995, 664-665) who sees social capital as the

“dealings with one another that are built on networks, norms and trust, which enable participants

to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives”. Due to the intangible nature of

social capital, it is important to clearly state how this ethereal but ever present concept is defined

in order to make readers aware of what it really means to the presenter. From the WVS, and for

this analysis of political participation, social capital is weaned in attitudes that reflect

interpersonal trust which is furthered by membership in nonpolitical organizations, voluntary

work for nonpolitical organizations and social networking through interaction with friends, work,

school or church colleagues or sport clubs. In essence it is about relationship building whether at


                                                  495
the attitudinal level or the organizational level, which is the nexus on which all other forms of

activity take place. This is relationship with people and to an extent with the system of structure

is the driving force for political participation as many proponents argue.


        Political values are attitudes individuals develop towards the system of which they seek

to influence, whether it is in favour of or against change in the status quo. Resources are

conceptualized as material and non-material and also renewable or non-renewable sources that

can be drawn on when needed. It can be money, property or assets. From a general framework,

institutional opportunities and constraints relate to systems or social structures that exist within

society which presents the prospect for an individual to advance socially or systems or social

structures that set limits or barriers to an individual’s progress.


        With this definition one must further distinguish between political participation which

again (Putnam 1995, 664-665) posits as one and one relations with political institutions. There

are different variables that are coined to understand political participation; our analysis however

will derive from (Klesner 2007, 7) who uses the 1999-2001 World Values Survey (WVS) which

provides a cross-national analysis of political participation. Among the questions that solicited

responses to political participation were if a respondent had ever or would ever sign a petition,

join a boycott, attend a demonstration, join an illegal strike, or occupy a building. Additionally,

Klesner’s index of political participation uses voluntary work for political parties, local political

action group, human rights or third world development organizations, environmental groups,

women’s organizations, and the peace movements as variables of political participation. In this

scenario, the issue of political participation is furthered through voluntary associations which

create social trust, which spills over into political trust and higher political participation.



                                                  496
       In going further political participation must also have some worth; in this regard Munroe

(2000; 1999, 15-16) speaks to the “quality” of political participation whereby participation takes

place within a conventional or unconventional channels or orthodox and unorthodox arenas. In

presenting these key terms, he says that if we are to look at political participation as “voting in

elections, writing petitions, and representations to or lobbying of legislatures and other

government authorities” all termed orthodox; juxtaposed the unorthodox activity of “protests,

demonstrations, boycotts, roadblocks; then having a healthy combination can lead to a high

quality while any disparity may mean high or low quality of political participation depending on

the milieu.


       Geography


       There have been different studies on the issue of political participation. Starting with

Latin America much analysis have been done due to the systems of government that exists and

the democratic principles which have come under attack at various times. The work of Kleyson

2007 looks at four of these countries to assess participation in terms of “signing a petition,

joining a boycott, attending a demonstration, joining an unofficial strike or occupying a

building” (Kleyson 2007, 6-7).




       Social space


       Indeed Klesner 2007 argues that there is a causal link with class and other socio-

economic and demographic factors and political activity. Using the age variable; older persons

are more likely to participate in political activities as opposed to younger persons. Those who are

endowed with economic resources; income and or property tend to use this to contribute to

                                               497
political arenas in order to protect their self interest. Additionally, education plays an integral

part in political participation whereby, more educate citizens participate more in the political

process. This latter aspect of education and participation, is thoroughly exaggerated by Sidney

Verba,Kay Lehman Scholman, Henery Brady and Norman Nie (1993- 466-7) who draws on

various works in this area. In going further, area of residence also factors significantly in

political participation as the work of Klesner 2007 posits. Having presented this argument

however, Klesner hastens to remind us that there are mixed conclusions on which area, rural or

urban is more likely to show a higher level of participation. From a sociological perspective,

modernization theorist had suggested that urbanization would trigger higher participation in

cities; this however according to Klesner 2007, was countered by (Asher, Richardson and

Weisberg 1984, 42-43) who argue that there is less connectedness in cities hence a deterrent to

collective endeavours and by extension political participation by members of the society. So

important is the various issues that are related to political participation that all the possible

variables must come to bear to understand the issue we are resolute to comprehend. This

therefore leads us in stating that not only is area of residence, income, age and education

important in understanding political participation but also the issue of gender.


       Defining trust


       Trust is a concept that spans the whole gamut of our every day relationships as we

interact as humans. Indeed trust as we have come to understand is one concept that has not

received much currency within the Caribbean academic space. This however, is not to be

overlooked as a unique situation. According to Timothy, C. Earle, Michael Siegrist and Heinz

Gutscher 2007, research on trust has been confined to particular discipline until recent

occurrences within the social science discipline. Apart from this arena, it is arguably the case that

                                                498
studies on trust has also been confined or one may say unexplored by various socio-geographic

spaces including the Caribbean. In going forward our discourse will explore the various

definitions that have been echoed which will give us the catalyst for developing one that is

applicable to the issue of trust and political participation. According to Earle et al (2007, 4) trust

is defined as the “willingness, in expectation of beneficial outcomes, to make oneself vulnerable

to another based on a judgement of similarity of intentions or values”; based on social relations,

group membership and shared values; a definition which he alludes is similar to Rosseau et al

(1998). The discussion on trust shows is distinguished on two levels: within groups where trust is

social but is displayed at a distance and also in close proximity. On the other hand, the trust that

is seen across groups is deemed as general trust. It is this demarcation in trust within groups and

trust across groups that Giddens 1990; and Becker 1996 respectively purport.


In defining trust it is also noted that trust as we know it also entail choosing among alternatives

based on what the outcome may entail, which could be trust in a system or an individual. This

choosing involves risk which of course can be positive- acting in their favour or negative- acting

against their wishes or desires. Interestingly however, trusting within this scenario is done based

on thinking that the outcome for the individual desirous of trust will be positive. In taking this

stance it is also echoed by Earle et al (2007) that trust is a forward looking phenomenon that can

elicit change of whatever sorts.


Although it is important to state what trust is on a broad level it would be remiss if one was

overlook the catalyst on which trust is based. Apart from the common principle of shared values

and social relations; the work of Earle et al 2007 points to trust that is reflective through shared

moral principles in-group membership, benevolence, integrity, inferred traits and intentions,

fairness and caring.

                                                 499
500
method



Sample



        This survey was administered by the Centre of Leadership and Governance (CLG),
University of the West Indies, Mona, Kingston, in May 2007. The sample was randomly
selected from the fourteen parishes of Jamaica, using the descriptive research design. The sample
frame is representative of the population based on gender and ethnicity. A total of 1,338
respondents aged 16 years and older were interviewed for this study, with a sampling error of
approximately ± 3%, at the 95% confidence level (i.e. CI). The average age for the sample is 34
years and 11 months ± 13 yrs and 7 months. The results that are presented here are based solely
on Jamaicans’ opinion of their political orientation. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze
the data.



Measures



Sex, ‘X’. This variable is being male or female. It is a binary variable, where 1=male and
0=female.

Area of Residence, ‘A’. This variable is the parish in which the individual lives while the study
was being conducted.

     AreaRes1                         1= Kingston and St. Andrew, 0=Other45
     AreaRes2                         1=St. Catherine, O=Other

Subjective Social Class, ‘S’. This is people’s perception of their social and economic position in
life, based on social stratification.
   Class1                           1=Middle class, 0=Other
   Class2                           1=Upper class, 0=Other
The reference group is ‘Lower Class’



45
  Jamaica is subdivided into fourteen parishes of which there are Kingston and St. Andrew. The Others are – St.
Thomas; Portland; St. Mary; St. Ann; Trelawny; St. James; Hanover; Westmoreland; St. Elizabeth; Manchester,
Clarendon, and St. Catherine.

                                                       501
Crime. These are social deviant behaviours that breach prevailing norms, specifically, cultural
standards as to how humans ought to behave.

Crime Index, CI = Σfi .d i , fi ≥ 0, which denotes the frequency with which an event occurs, and
d i ≥ 0 that represents the type of crimes witnessed or perpetrated against. Thus, 0≤CI ≤ (See
extended listing in Appendix II).

Marital Status, ‘M’. This is defined as a conjugal arrangement between people, which is based on
the law of the country or its customs. These arrangements must be between consensual adults
(from ages of 16 years and older).
       Marstatus1              1=Single and Visiting, 0=Other
       Marstatus2              1=Married, divorced/remarried, 0=Other
       Marstatus3              1=Common-Law, 0=Other
       Marstatus4              1=Separated, 0=Other
Widow is the reference group.
Employment status, ‘Em ’.
       Employ1                 1=Employed, part-time, temporary and seasonal, 0=Other
       Employ2                 1=Self-employed, 0=Other
       Employ3                 1=Unemployed, 0=Other

The ‘full-time’ employed person is the reference group.

Income, ‘Yi ’. Income is a ordinary variable with twenty-categories, ranging from (1) under
$5,000 to (20) $250,000 and above. (see Appendix V, for extended listing). Based on the nature
of this variable, it will be treated as a continuous variable.

Justice, ‘J’. This variable is a non-metric variable, which speaks to people’s perception of the
‘fairness’ (or ‘fairness, for that matter) of the governance of the country. The construct will be
dummy coded as 1=Yes, and 0=No.

Perceived Corruption Index, PCI =
Ethnicity, ‘Et ’.
        Ethn1                1=Black, 0=Other
        Ethn2                1=White, 0=Other
        Ethn3                1=Brown, 0=Other
The reference group is Chinese, Indians, et cetera.


Religiosity, ‘R’. The frequency with which people attend religious services, which does not
include attending functions such as (1) graduations, (2) weddings, (3) christenings, (4) funerals.
This variable begins with 0 being the most attended to 7, being none at all.

Educational Level, ‘E’.
       Edu_level1                     1=Primary/Preparatory, 0=Other
       Edu_level2                     1=All age, secondary and vocational skills, 0=Other
       Edu_level3                     1=University, and professional training, 0=Other

                                               502
The reference group is ‘No formal’ education.
 Note that IndEdu_level represents the educational level of the respondent, Fat Edu_level,
denotes the educational level of the respondent’s father and Mot Edu_level, means the
educational level of the interviewee’s mother.



Confidence Index, ‘CFI’. The CFI = Σ fi .c i , where f i indicates the frequency of the occurrence
of the event, and c i denotes the event. F i ranges from 1=no confidence, 2=a little confidence,
3=some confidence, and 4=a lot of confidence. (See Appendix IV for extended listing of the ci).



Trust, ‘T’. This is people’s perception of their ‘trust’ in other people. It will be a dummy
variable, where 1=Yes, and 0=No.



Subjective Psychological Wellbeing Index, ‘SPWI’. SPWI = ΣQ i / Σf; where Q i is the selected
value from each ladder of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need, and ‘f’ being the frequency of the event.
The Cronbach α being 0.762 for the 5-item variables, which are used to constitute this Index.



Political Participation Index, ‘PPI’. Based on Trevor Munroe’s work, ‘political participation’
“...the extent to which citizens use their rights, such as the right to protest, the right of free
speech, the right to vote, to influence or to get involved in political activity” (Munroe, 2002:4;
See also, Munroe, 1999:33), w use those construct to formulate a PPI = Σb i , b i ≥ 0, and b i
represents each response to a question on political behaviour, such as voting, involvement in
protest (see extended list in Appendix I); and 0≤PPI≤19. Cronbach alpha for the 19-item scale
is 0.83 (i.e. it reflects a good reliability of the measuring the variable of PPI).




                                               503
Table 1: Findings - Demographic Variables, N=1,338

       Characteristics                                           Percentage (Count)


Gender:
Male                                                                    44.3 (574)
Female                                                                  55.7 (723)

Ethnicity:
White                                                                   8.0 (106)
Black and Brown                                                         90.0 (1,201)
Other                                                                   2.0 (26)

Subjective Social Class
Lower                                                                   59.0 (766)
Middle                                                                  36.6 (476)
Upper                                                                    4.4 (57)

Age                                                                     35 ± 14

Respondents’ Educational Level
No Formal                                                               1.5 (20)
Primary/Preparatory                                                     3.1 (40)
Secondary                                                               69.0 (892)
Tertiary                                                                26.2 (339)



Of the 1,338 respondents interviewed for the study, 55.7% are females (n=723) compared to
44.3% males (n=574), with a response rate of 96.7%. The average age of the sample is 35 years
± 14 years. Substantially more of the sample classify themselves as being apart of the lower
social class (59.0%, n=766), 36.6% are of the middle class (n=476) compared to 4.4% who are in
the upper class (n=57). The findings reveal that most of the respondents have attained the
secondary level education (69.0%, n=892), 26.2% (n=339) have acquired post-secondary
training, 3.1% (n=40) primary or preparatory level education compared to 1.5% have no formal
education whatsoever. Based on Table 1, Trelawny is the only parish with the least number of
interviewees, 3.8% (n=50), with the other area of residence showing a similar percentage of
respondents. Another demographic variable of importance to this research is ethnicity/race,
90.0% of the interviewed are Blacks and Browns, with 8.0% being Whites (or Caucasians)
compared to 2.0% who indicate Others such as Chinese, Indians, and Other races.
                                             504
Table 2.1: Findings – Other Variables, N=1,338

       Characteristics                                               Percentage (Count)


Political Participation Index                                              4.0 ± 3.7
                                                                     mode = 0, max = 19

Subjective Psychological Wellbeing Index                                   6.9 ± 1.7
                                                               mode = 7.8, max = 10

Confidence Index                                                           2.6 ± 0.5
                                                               mode = 2.6, max = 22

Crime Index                                                        0.3 ± 1.1
                                                               mode = 0, max = 17
Employment Status
Employed                                                             55.1 (732)
Unemployed                                                           25.9 (345)
Self-employed                                                        19.0 (252)

Individual Trust in Others
Yes                                                                   37.3 (472)
No                                                                    62.7 (795)

Justice in Governance
Yes                                                                  74.1 (929)
No                                                                   25.9 (324)


The findings in Table 2 have shown that ‘Political Participation’ in Jamaica is very low (4 out of
19 or 21%) ± 3.7. Furthermore, the ‘Confidence Index’ shows that Jamaicans are not confident
about the ‘running’ of the country among other things (2.6 out of 22) ± 0.5. The subjective
psychological wellbeing, on the other hand, is very high (i.e. 6.9 out of 10) ± 1.7. When the
sampled population were asked about their ‘trust’ in other Jamaicans, 62.7% (n=795) say that
other people cannot be trusted compared to 37.3% (n=472) who indicate otherwise. With respect
to ‘justice in the governance’ of the society in regard to it being runned in the interest of ‘rich’,
74.1% (n=929) of sampled population indicate ‘Yes’ compared to 25.9% (n=324) say ‘No’. (see
Table 2.1).


                                                505
        An examination between trusting in government and sex of respondents (see Table 2.2)

revealed that there is a statistical relation between the two aforementioned variables - χ(1) =

7.095, p value= 0.005. The association is weak negative one – single correlation is – 0. 077.

Further analysis of table 2.2 shows that approximately 11% of males trust the government

compared to 6.3% of the females. Thus, males are approximately twice (1.7) trusting of

government compared to their female counterparts.




Table 2.2 Trusting in government and Sex of respondents, N=1,200


                                           Male                          Female



Gov’t Trust:

        No                                 89.5                          93.7


        Trust                              10.5                          6.3


Total                                      532                           668

χ(1) = 7.095, p value= 0.005




                                             506
        A further investigation of trust in government and sex of respondents controlled

for by age group revealed that the statistical association between trusting in government

and sex could be explained by other adults and elderly – p value < 0.5 – and not by youth

(p value > 0.05) (see Note below). Looking at the cross-tabulation results in table 2.3

below, 10.6% of males who are within the other adult’s category reported that they trust

government, 25% of elderly males trust the government. Whereas, 5.8% of other adults

females trust the government; and 5.9% of elderly females indicated a trust for

government.


Table 2.3: Trust in government and sex of respondents, controlled for sex, N=1,200

                                 Male                           Female
                            46
                Age group                                  Age group

          Youth Other Adults       Elderly       Youth     Other Adults      Elderly

No             93.2     89.4            75.0             92.9         94.2             94.1

Trust gov’t:

Yes             6.8     10.6            25.0             7.1          5.8               5.9



Total                 161        331             40             239          395
34




 Youth - χ(1) = 0.012, p value= 0.541
46

 Other Adults : χ(1) = 5.531, p value= 0.013
 Elderly : χ(1) = 4.944, p value= 0.026




                                               507
Table 3: Multiple Regression – Determinants of Political Participation
                                Unstandardized           Standardized
                                 Coefficients            Coefficients        t
                                B        Std. Error          Beta

(Constant)                     -1.041           1.043                    -       -0.998

                            0.089**
Age                                             0.010               0.318        8.920
                                  *

                            0.089**
Confidence Index                                0.275               0.171        4.989
                                  *

Dummy - Perception of       1.372**
                                                0.309               0.119        3.458
Corruption (1=Yes)                *


Religiosity                     .143*           0.062               0.080        2.315


FatEdulevel3               -1.496**             0.517           -0.102           -2.892

                                  -
Employ3                     1.154**             0.332           -0.124           -3.472
                                  *
                           -0.178**             0.075           -0.082           -2.356
SPWB
                           -0.922**             0.374           -0.087           -2.416
Employ1
                            -0.600*             0.298           -0.071           -2.011
MotEdulevel2

F (9,700)= 19.281
R=0.446
Adjusted R2 = 0.188
N=710
* significant p value < 0.05

** significant p value ≤ 0.01

*** significant p value ≤ 0.001
A Dependent Variable: Index of Political Participation




                                          508
We have identified 12 variables from the literature in an attempt to arrive at a model that
will be used to predict ‘political participation’. Based on Table 3, five factors came out
to be determinants. (See determinant model, below):




                                       Hypotheses



General Hypothesis: PPI =ƒ (SPWI, Y i , CFI, E, R, E t , J, E m , CI, S, A, X)



PPI = α + β 1 X1 + β2X2 +                   β 3 X3   +   β 4 X4   +   β 5 X5   +   β 6 X6   +
β7X7 ………………………………... (1)



Thus, using the data, we found these factors to be determinants, which give this model:



PPI = -3.396 + 0.099A + 0.063CFI + 1.347PCI + 0.188R – 1.388E fat – 1.154Em 3 -0.922
Em 1-0.6Emot
…………………………………………………………………………………….…… (2)



       We found that there are seven factors that can be used to predict political
participation. The model explains (adjusted R2) 18.8% of the variation in political
participation, of which Age accounts for 11.5%, Confidence, 2.1%, Perception of
Corruption, 1.6%; Religiosity, 0.8%, and father’s education 0.7%, employment status3,
0.7%, employment status1, 0.6, subjective psychological wellbeing, 0.5%, mother’s
education2, 0.3%. Continuing, using the regression model in Eqn (2), the coefficient for
religiosity, 0.14, this denotes that less religious Jamaicans are the more they will
participate in politics, and the same goes for perception of corruption, 1.1, confidence,
1.4, with the older Jamaicans being more involve, 0.09. Father’s educational level and
mother’s education level are found to be predictors of political participation. Embedded
in this finding is the importance of fathers and mothers in encouraging children to



                                           509
become involved later in life in political activities. The coefficient of father’s level of
education, -1.5, means that fathers with post-secondary level of training (i.e. education)
compared to fathers who have ‘no formal’ education are less likely to encourage their
children to exercise their political behaviour. Furthermore, mothers whose education is a
secondary level compared with those who have ‘no formal’ are less likely to encourage
political participation.

        Some other revealing findings were discovered, based on Table 3, the self-
employed were found not to be a significant predictor of political participation. It was
found that, full-time employed persons are more likely to participate politically than their
part-time colleagues are, -0.922. The unemployed with reference to ‘full-time’ employed
Jamaicans are less likely to be political involved, -1.154. Thus, full-time employed
Jamaicans are more likely to participate politically than either (1) the part-time employed
or (2) the unemployed.

        Based on the regression model, fathers with secondary and primary level
education when compared to those dad with ‘no formal’ education, there is no difference
between how they influence their children. Mother who indicate that their level of
education was at the secondary level compared to those without ‘formal’ education was
less likely to encourage their children to participate political, -0.600. This means that
mothers who do not have any formal education were more likely to encourage their
children to participate politically than those with secondary education. It should be noted
that there is no statistical association between mother’s whose educational level is at the
tertiary or primary level and political participation

        The regression model; (1) reveals some important findings Jamaicans believe that
higher political participation is directly related to greater corruption and confidence.
Secondly, Jamaicans who resident in Kingston and St. Andrew are not more involved in
political activities than those who dwell in other parishes of the island. Thirdly, there is
no statistical difference between the political involvement of males and females.
Fourthly, there is an inverse relationship between subjective psychological wellbeing and
political participation. This implies, the greater is someone subjective psychological
wellbeing, the lower would be the individual’s level of political involvement. Sixthly, an


                                             510
invaluable finding, based on the model, there is no statistical difference between the
political participation of the lower, middle or upper class.




                                             511
Modeling Political Participation and Different types of trust

       In this section of the study, we tested the general hypothesis

PP=ƒ(Ti , TG , X)…………………………………………………………………….. [3.1]




       The rationale behind the use of only three predisposed variables in this model is
totally because the researcher wanted to ascertain whether interpersonal trust, trust in
government and sex of respondents affects political participation. Given that we had
already established a number of factors on political participation, we wanted to isolated
the effect of trust outside of any other variable with the except of sex.




       Of the two types of trust – generalized interpersonal and trust in government – we
found that there is not statistical relations between interpersonal trust and political
participation (p value=0.570 > 0.05), whereas there is a statistical association between
trust in government and political participation (p value =0.001 < 0.5) as well as sex of
respondents and political participation (p value=0.001 < 0.05). Further examination of
the different typologies of trust, sex of respondents and political participation revealed
that people who trust the government are more likely to participate in political activities
compared to those who do not (β=0.113); and that males are more likely to participate in
political events in Jamaica than their female counterparts (β=122). (see table xxx)




       Trust in government and sex of respondents are weakly statistically related to
political participation (R = 17.2%; R-square = 0.03, F[3, 1136]=11.5, p value =0.001).
Hence, the final model is

PP=ƒ(TG , X)……………………………………….…………………………….. [3.2]




                                             512
Table xxx

Political Participation
                                      Unstandardized    Standardized
Model                                  Coefficients     Coefficients      t         Sig.
                                                Std.
                                       B        Error       Beta
                  (Constant)           3.576       .165                  21.616       .000
                  Dummy
                  Trust                 -.127         .224       -.017    -.568       .570
                  (1=Trust)
                  Trust- gov’t         1.495          .392       .113     3.812       .000
                  Sex
                                        .898          .216       .122     4.158       .000
                  (1=Male)

        We have already established that perceived corruption affects political

participation, and now we can conclude that trust is a factor that explains people

participation (or lack) in political activities.


                                        Discussion of Findings

        There are many assertions on political behaviour in particular participation that
have been branded about as representative of the Jamaican experience. Those positions
have arisen primarily from a reflective argumentation on observing society’s members as
a whole. The effect that those theorizing have is that it offers an explanation of people’s
behaviour from reasoned positions; and in addition, they allow for the formulation of
policies. In this paper, we are not arguing that qualitative methodologies and methods
used currently to forward perspective on political behaviour are wrong, or flawed, but
that we are providing a model, which can be used to derive from Jamaicans political
behaviour.

        Qualitative methods have dominated the inquiry of political participation in
Jamaica for centuries with the exception of voter behaviour, but this paper has used
multiple regressions from a national sample survey to test a number of hypotheses.
Substantially, the hypotheses have been drawn from subjective notions among the
intelligentsia class. Having tested those notions, we are concluding that seven factors can
be used to predict a Jamaican’s political participation.


                                                513
       Within the political landscape of Jamaica, men are said to be more of a political
animal than their female counterparts. We have come to accept the notion that females
are less likely than men to be involved in various political events.         However, this
representative sample survey has found that there is no statistical difference between the
sexes political involvement. This speaks to misnomer that exists on political participation
of the sexes in Jamaica. Thus, using the number of men in representational politics as an
indicator of men political involvement is a misrepresentation of the socio-political reality.
Women’s political participation is far more extensive than just seat counts in Parliament.

       One of the many ‘perspectives’ that exists within the Jamaican political landscape
is that people in Kingston and Saint Andrew are involved political than those individuals
who reside in Other parishes. As our findings reveal that there is no difference between
the political participation of residence of Kingston and Saint Andrew, and dwellers in
other parishes. Embedded in this finding is the socio-political reality that despite high
percentage of garrison communities in the Corporate Area in Jamaica, residence in other
parishes are equally participating in political events like their counterparts in Kingston
and Saint Andrew.

       One of the surprising findings of this study is that there is no statistically
association between social class and political participation. (Pearson’s ρ value > 0.05).
The researchers used working class as a reference group and found that when middle
class was investigated, there is no statistical association between it and political
participation (Pearson’s ρ value > 0.05 , 0.473); and when upper class was examined it
was also found not to be significant (Pearson’s ρ value > 0.05, 0.480). Many Caribbean
scholars (See Munroe, Stone) have alluded to the lower class being more politically
involved than other perceived social class. But this nationally representative sample
survey has not found this to be the case in Jamaica.

       Jamaicans have been socialized that Blacks are more so willing to participate
politically than other ethnicity. This research has concluded that when Caucasians (or
Whites) with Other ethnicities being used as a reference group, there was no statistical
relationship exists between it and political participation (Pearson’s ρ value > 0.05, 0.147).
Continuing, the Blacks were used as a dummy variable with Other ethnicities being the


                                            514
reference group and we found that so relationship exists here ((Pearson’s ρ value > 0.05,
0.400). Furthermore, when those persons who report that they are brown (or mixed) with
Other ethnicities being used as a reference group, we again found no association
(Pearson’s ρ value > 0.05, 0.078).       Therefore, we have concluded that Jamaicans
irrespective of their race will be involved political the same way.

        In this study, we find that people who are less frequent in church attendance are
more likely to participate politically compared to their more ardent religious counterparts.
This is not surprising, because the perception of the Jamaicans is that generally politics is
corrupt and that adherence to governance of the land is importance, and so more political
involvement is expected to be coming from those which lower religiosity. Another
expected finding is the predictability of age and political participation. Most Caribbean
scholars have agreed that age is a factor in political involvement, this study concurs with
those works in the literature that an association exists between the two phenomena
However, we went further to include this variable as a predictor of political participation
(β =0.318, ρ value <0.05, 0.001). Based on Stone’s work (Stone 1974), using voter
behavior as an indicator of political participation, youth have also exhibit a lower turn out
than their other age cohorts.

        Even though this is not new as it was purported by Trevor Munroe from a
qualitative perspective, this research has computed a subjective psychological index of
Jamaicans, and we have found that subjective psychologic wellbeing is inversely related
to political participation (β =-0.082, ρ value < 0.05, 0.01). Embedded in this position is
how politics is a vehicle that is used by the less fortunate to express their dissatisfaction
with a system, and how they use this as a medium of expressing a need for assistance.
This could explain why there is no statistical relationship between political participation
and income. Such a socio-political reality speaks to a degree of frustration and apathy in
political involvement. As people socioeconomic resources do not need the intervention
of political involvement in its broadest definition to attain any particular outcome from
the political process.




                                            515
                                        Reference

Earle, Timothy, C. Michael Siegrist and Heinz Gutscher. (2007). Trust, risk perception
      and the TCC Model of Cooperation. Trust in Cooperative Risk Management:
      Uncertainty and Scepticism in the Public Mind edited by Michael Siegrist, timothy
      C. Earle 7 Heinz Gutscher. Earthscan US and UK.

Munroe, Trevor. (2002). An Introduction to Politics. Lectures for First-Year Students, 3rd.
    Kingston: Canoe.

Munroe, Trevor. (1999). Renewing democracy into the Millennium. The Jamaican
    Experience in Perspective. Kingston: The University of the West Indies Press.




                                           516
Appendix I



      Did you voted in the last general elections?
      Have you ever joined a political party?
      Worked for a party or a candidate in an election?
      Attended a political meeting or an election rally?
      Attempted to persuade other to vote?
      Written a letter to a newspaper on a political issue?
      Phoned in to contribute your comments to a radio or television talk show, on
       political issues?
      Contributed your comments to an internet “blog: on a political issue?
      Personally sent a letter or message of protest, or support, to a political leader?
      Contacted a local governmental official or politician, to seek help with a personal
       problem you or your family had?
      Contacted a central governmental official or politician, on some general
       community problem?
      Contacted a central governmental official or politician, to seek held with a
       personal problem you or your family had?
      Contacted a local governmental official or politician, to seek help on some
       general community problem?
      Signed a petition?
      Blocked traffic in protest?
      Participated in an organized ‘strike’?
      Participated in an organized ‘boycott’?
      Participated in a peaceful march or public demonstration?
      Were you enumerated to vote when the last national elections were held for
       Parliament back in December 2002?




Source: Taken from a dataset of a Survey conducted by the Centre of Leadership and
Governance (CLG), Department of Government, The University of the West Indies in L.
A. Powell, Bourne, P., & Waller, L., (2007). Probing Jamaica’s Culture, Volume 1: Main
Trends in the Leadership and Governance Survey July-August 2006. Kingston: CLG,
Department of Government, The University of the West Indies, Mona Campus.




                                           517
                                        Appendix II


                                                             Scatterplot



                                         Dependent Variable: Index of Political Participation

                                   4
Regression Standardized Residual




                                   3


                                   2


                                    1


                                   0


                                   -1


                                   -2


                                   -3

                                          -4           -2            0            2             4
                                                  Regression Standardized Predicted Value




                                                                         518
Appendix VI: Employment types



In terms of work, which of these best describes your present situation, %?
                                                    Types of Employment



Employed – Full time                                     40.3

             Part-time                                   10.0

             Seasonally                                  4.8

Self-employed                                            19.0

Unemployed                                               12.3

Retired                                                  3.2

Housewife                                                1.6

Student                                                  8.6

Sick/Disabled person                                     0.2



Total                                                    1,329




                                        519
                                                                                    Chapter


                                                                                          13


Public Opinion and Voting Behaviour of Jamaicans: Pre-2007 General Elections




       Introduction


       Voting behaviour is the most popular of all the tenets of conventional political

participation that is used by many scholars to indicate political behaviour (Stone, 1974;

Munroe 1999, 2002; Buddan, 2001). Francis Fukuyama opines that trust is a fundamental

premise upon which a stable democracy exists; and according to Trevor Munroe, voting

behaviour is one of features of the citizenry display of conventional political involvement

in the running of a nation. Thus, voting behaviour is a good measure to use to evaluate

people’s trust in government, the administration of the country’s affairs, and a sense of

citizenry’s confidence in the credibility and integrity of government.


       Since its transition from the colonial system to independent self-government,

Jamaica is one of the few countries in the global South that has entertained a competitive

party system (Stone 1978). There had been a regular transference of power between the

two dominant political parties, the Peoples National Party (PNP) and the Jamaica Labour

Party (JLP). But with the PNP having been in power since 1989, Jamaica may be seeing a

shift in voter preference, or a larger transition in their democratic process. Stone’s (1993)

study was the last study which sought to incorporate the Caribbean into the extant

literature on democratic theory by analyzing the voting behaviour of Jamaicans. In the



                                            520
subsequent elections under universal suffrage (1944 to 1971), voting behaviour was

analyzed by way of the electoral data. Stone (1992; 1989; 1981; 1978a, 1978b; 1974)

demonstrated that opinion survey can be effectively used to predict an election by way of

knowing the profile of the electorates. Dearth of literature exists in the past on voting

behavior in Jamaica using the electoral system and survey opinion polling; since Stone’s

(1993) study no one has sought to update and evaluate the voting behaviour of Jamaicans.

Using data taken from two surveys that were administered by the Centre of Leadership

and Governance (CLG)47, University of West Indies, Mona-Jamaica, this paper seeks to

update the knowledge reservoir on Jamaican voters in 2007, pending a very critical

upcoming election period.


         Until the late 1980s, no political party has had more than two terms in office in

Jamaica (Stone 1978b). There had been a regular transference of power between the two

dominant political parties: the ‘left’ oriented Peoples National Party (PNP) and the

capitalist oriented Jamaica Labour Party (JLP).48 Stone (1978) argued that the continuous

changing of the political directorates was a hallmark of a healthy democratic system. The

victory of the PNP in 1989 changed this cycle; following that victory, the party won four

consecutive general elections, something that has come as a surprise to many political

pundits. This change signals a paradigm shift from what constitutes a “healthy”

democracy. The Peoples National Party (PNP) has accomplished an unprecedented feat,

having been in power for the past 15 years; therefore, an analysis of voting behaviour is


47
   The Centre for Leadership and Governance was launched in November 2006 within the Department of
Government, UWI, Mona-Jamaica, to develop governance structure, encourage student participation, and
provide policy based research activities for parliamentarians.
48
   Despite the fact that the political affectation of the PNP has changed since its original installation, the
party is still associated with social democratic principles.


                                                    521
needed in order to understand what has changed this two party competitiveness that once

existed in Jamaica. But to what extent can we assess people’s support of democratic

freedom from their voting behaviours? If a people continue to democratically elect the
                                                                                                          49
same party, it could be construed as a change occurring within the political culture.


         One of the particular features of Jamaican political culture is the class affiliations

of the two dominant parties. It can been argued that the “lower” and “middle” classes of

Jamaican are predominantly oriented towards the PNP while Jamaica’s “upper” class is

generally affiliated with the JLP. Each of the main political parties in Jamaica, the JLP or

the PNP, will amass support from various social classes because of programmes that they

employ. For example, when the Michael Manley administration (PNP) took the decision

to introduce free education in the 1970s, maternal leave for pregnant women, “crash

programme work” for the working class, this resonated with the working and middle

classes in Jamaica. The JLP through Sir Alexander Bustamante has equally contributed

to the perspective of the particular classes. When Bustamante took the position to die

rather than leaving the sugar workers, it resonated with the working class of the day, and

could justify his victory at the poll following that showing. An important consideration of

this study will be the class composition of the voters surveyed.




49
    Space does not allow for a thorough examination of Jamaica’s political culture, nor is such an
examination the thrust of this paper, but it is important to offer some thoughts on political socialization as
it relates to this study. It has been argued that the political culture of a society is tied to its socialization,
which is a consensus of beliefs, customs, preconception and a certain orientation among its members (see
Powell, Bourne and Waller 2007). In this paper, political socialization will refer to the process by which
Jamaican’s develop their partisan attitudes and affiliations. It would be dangerous to assert that the
socialization process, the process by which people form their beliefs and customs, is owed entirely to the
family unit. Recognizing the role that the family plays in locating people within larger structures like class,
it is the contention of this paper that education too plays a pivotal role in political socialization.


                                                      522
       This study borrows from Stone’s (1978) previous usage of opinion polling to

determine voting behaviour. What was unique about Stone’s work is that he was aware of

the limitations of empiricism, and therefore sought to explain the “swings” in electoral

outcomes via a political economy framework (Edie 1997). The likelihood of a Jamaica

Labour Party (JLP) win or the continuance of current PNP administration, which in and

of itself would be furthering a neoteric history of voting behaviour in this country,

requires careful analysis beyond aggregate numbers. Indeed, the association between

factors such as gender, and age, and their impact on voting behaviour and voter

numeration will be important considerations in this paper as well. Therefore, one of the

objectives of this study is to examine the differences in voting behaviour by gender. A

second objective is to evaluate whether there are differences in support for the two main

political parties across age groups and social classes.


       One of the challenges of such a study is the static use of self-reported data as a

yardstick to assess future decisions of people. Human behaviour is fluid, and so any

attempt to measure this in the long-term might be futile. Nevertheless, we will attempt

here to unearth some salient characteristics of the Jamaican voters as well as to provide a

more in-depth understanding of a probable outcome of the next general elections. While

this study is not concerned with furthering the epistemological framework that Stone

relied on, we recognize that the survey research technique could offer tremendous

insights on Jamaica’s voting behaviour in the forthcoming elections. This study should

offer some grounds on which to compare and contrast the voting behavioural patterns of

Jamaicans currently and perhaps in the future, and to understand those factors that are

likely to influence non-voters.



                                             523
       Originally, political economists used electoral data to provide rich information on

aggregate voting patterns by regions (Stone 1978; Lipset and Rokkan 1967). The study of

voting behaviour emerged out of the electoral data, but this only offer scholars and non-

academics alike an aggregate perspective on the actual voting patterns by geographic

space (Stone1974; 1978b). A comparison between electoral statistics and sample survey

method, is that the former is not able to probe the meaning systems of people, their

attitudes, perceptions, moods, expectations, political behaviour that justify their actions

(or inactions). On the side of the delimitation of electoral statistics, it is primarily past

events with subdivision concerning socio-demographic and psychological conditions of

people. Therefore, this approach whilst offering invaluable information on the

ideographic, cross-national and comparative patterns of voting, and equally providing a

contextual background on the political milieu from which the voters are drawn is limited

in scope. As voters are not only influenced by those conditions, but also impacted upon

by socio-psychological and economic conditions (Stone 1974), the need was there for a

method that would capture those tenets, which is the ‘political sociology of voting’.


       It follows then that when Professor Carl Stone introduced sample survey method

in the political landscape to probe people’s voting behaviour it was a first for the nation

(Stone 1973, 1974, 1978b). The sample survey method allows for a more detailed

analysis of voting behaviour, by way of those demographic, socio-economic and political

factors that influence the choices of voters. The sample survey method allows for the use

of the social structure model in seeking to investigate voting behaviour. Among the

advantages of the use of the survey method is its ability to predict behaviour, provide

association (or the lack thereof), it is high in ability to generalize, can be used for



                                            524
national, regional and international comparison among other nations. With this approach,

Stone was able to consecutively predict all the winners for the general elections between

1970 and 1994. The social structure model places emphasis on social conditions such as

social class as predictors of voting behaviours. In this paper, the author will only address

age, gender and class as predictors of voting behaviour, because the survey with which

this analysis will be made possible can only accommodate those social factors.


       Method


       This survey was administered by the Centre of Leadership and Governance

(CLG), University of the West Indies, Mona, Kingston, in May 2007. The sample was

randomly selected from the fourteen parishes of Jamaica, using the descriptive research

design. The sample frame is representative of the population based on gender and

ethnicity. A total of 1,438 respondents aged 18 years and older were interviewed for this

study, with a sampling error of approximately ± 3%, at the 95% confidence level (i.e. CI).

The results that are presented here are based solely on Jamaicans’ opinion of their

political orientation. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data.


       For each survey, the sample was selected using a multistage sampling approach of

the fourteen parishes of Jamaica. Each parish was called a cluster, and each cluster was

further divided into urban and rural zones, male and female, and upper, middle and lower

social classes. The final sample was then randomly selected from the clusters. The first

survey saw a sample of 1,338 respondents, with an average age of 34 years and 11

months ± 13 yrs and 7 months. On the second survey, 1,438 respondents aged 18 years

and older were interviewed, with a sampling error of approximately ± 3%, at the 95%




                                             525
confidence level. The results presented here are based solely on Jamaicans’ opinion of

their political orientation.


        Operational Definitions


        It is necessary here to provide some clarity on the terms that are being used in this

study. We are attempting to make some predictions on voting behaviour, which is the

level of voters’ participation in a democratic society. In other words, voting behavior here

refers to “which party you intend to either vote for or have voted for,” and the frequency

of support or lack of. Survey participants were asked if they were (a) definitely voting

for the PNP, (b) definitely voting for the JLP, (c) probably voting for the JLP, or (d)

probably voting for the PNP. Voter enumeration is another important term that we are

dealing with in this study. Enumeration here is defined as the self-report of people who

indicated that they are registered to vote in an election. In the survey it was denoted as a

binary value (0=No, 1=Yes).


        This paper also attempts to look at Jamaica’s political culture in terms of social

constructions, such as gender, and social class. We recognize gender as a social construct

and set of learned characteristics that identify the socio-cultural prescribed roles that men

and women are expected to play. In the survey it is also represented as a binary value

(0=female, 1=male). Social class here is defined subjectively. Respondents were asked to

indicate using their self-assessment as to which social class they consider themselves to

be in (1) working class, (2) middle class, (3) upper-middle class or (4) upper class.

Educational level is an integral part of defining social class, even subjectively. By

educational level we are referring to the total number of years of schooling, (including




                                            526
apprenticeship and/or the completion of particular typology of school) that an individual

completes within the formal educational system (1=primary and/or preparatory and

below; 1=secondary or high; 3= vocational; 4=undergraduate and graduate education, and

5=post-university qualification).


       Lastly, age is defined as the length of time that one has existed; a time in life that

is based on the number of years lived; duration of life. Age is represented as a non-binary

measure (1=young, 1=middle age- 26 to 59 years and 3=elderly). The United Nations has

defined the aged as people of 60 years and older (WHO 2007). Oftentimes, ageing (i.e.

the elderly) means the period in which an individual stops working or he/she begins to

receive payment from the state. Many countries are, however, using 60 years and over as

the definition of the elderly including Professor Eldemire (1995) but for this paper, we

will use the chronological age of 60 years and beyond.


       Results


       Sociodemographic factors


       Some background information on May 2007 survey is helpful here. According to

the Statistical Institute of Jamaica (2001) 91.61% of Jamaica is African (Black), while

0.89% are East Indian, and those of Chinese, and European descent comprise 0.20% and

0.18% of Jamaica’s population respectively. (6.21% of Jamaicans were classified as

“other.”) Some 81.3% (n=1168) of the sampled respondents considered themselves to be

Africans (or Blacks), 3.8% (n=54) Indians, 0.5% (n=Asians – Chinese), 0.5% (n=7)

Syrians (or Lebanese), 0.2% (n=3) Europeans (or Caucasians or Britain or French), 0.1%

(n=1) North American Caucasians and 13.2% (n=190) reported mixed.



                                            527
       Approximately 33% (n=468) of the respondents were youth, 62.3% (n=891) were

middle age and 5.0% were elderly. Some 28.7% (202) of the males are youth, 65.9%

(n=463) are middle age while 5.4% (n=38) are 60 years and older. Concerning the

female population, 36.6% (n=266) are youth, 58.9% (n=428) are middle age and 4.5%

(n=33) are senior citizens. 74.4% (n=1009) of those who supplied data on their ages

indicated that the current government favours the rich more than the poor. Of those who

reported that the government is fostering the interest of the rich, 33.3% (n=336) were

youth, 62.3% (n=629) were middle age and 4.4% (n=44) were elderly. Disaggregating

the data reveal that 50.4% (n=506) of those who indicated that the current policies favour

the affluent are males compared to 49.6% (n=498) of the females. Most (58.8%, n=293)

of the female respondents who reported that that the present policies of the government

favour the rich are middle age, with 37.6% (n=187) who are youth compared to 3.6%

(n=18) who are elderly. More middle- aged men (65.8%, n=333) than middle- aged

women (58.8%, n=293) believe that the current administration’s policies favour the rich.

A major difference between the genders and age cohort was found as substantially more

youth females (37.6%, n=187) than youth males perceived that government’s policies are

anti-poor.




                                           528
Voting Patterns


       Table 1: If an election were to be called now “which party would you vote for?”
                                                    Voting typology
                                                              Definitel
                                                    Probably y          Total


                                                    63          167        230
                                                    6..3%       16.8%      23.1%
                    JLP

     Party                               2006


                                                    152         374        526
                                                    15.3%       37.7%      53.0%
                    PNP


                                                    Voting typology
                                                              Definitel
                                                    Probably y          Total


                                                    128         255        383
                                                    12.0%       23.6       35.6
                    JLP

     Party                               2007


                                                    143         274        417
                                                    13.2%       25.4%      38.6%
                    PNP




       Several important shifts can be seen to have taken place in voter attitudes over the

past ten months, if one compares the August 2006 and the May 2007 CLG survey results.

When asked who they would “vote for in the next general elections”, the current (May

2007) survey indicates that PNP still retains a 3 percent lead (38.6% PNP to 35.6% JLP)


                                           529
among eligible voters. However, a substantial narrowing has occurred since August 2006,

when the comparable figures were 53% PNP and 23.1% JLP; this represents a 10% net

increase for JLP, and a 17% decrease for PNP. There has also been a shift in ‘overall

party support’ during that same period (see Table 1, above). Again, PNP remains slightly

ahead, but has lost ground in the intervening months. When asked what party they

“always vote for” or “usually vote for”, 43% of the respondents to the May 2007 survey

say they “usually” or “always” vote for PNP, whereas 36.3% “usually” or “always” vote

for JLP.   As of the August 2006 survey, the comparable figures were 57.2% PNP

supporters and 25.2% JLP supporters -- an 11% increase for JLP and 14% drop for PNP

over a ten-month period (see for example, Bourne 2007).


       A shift in terms of political orientation seems to be taking place as 5.3% of

‘Definite’ supporters of the PNP reported that they would definitely be voting for the JLP

compared to 4.7% of the ‘Definite’ JLP who indicated that they would definitely be

marking an X for the PNP. Further, 1.5% of ‘Definite’ PNP indicated a possibility of

voting for the JLP compared to 2.8% of ‘die-hearted’ JLP supporters who mentioned that

they probably might be marking that ‘X’ for the PNP. Furthermore, 3.4% of those who

have a political leniency toward the JLP reported that they will definitely be voting for

the PNP with 4.3% mentioned ‘probably’.          However, among those with the PNP

orientation, 18.9% of those who voted PNP in the last general elections reported that they

will be voting for the JLP, with another 16.5% who said that they might be marking that

X for the JLP.


       Those whose political culture is not party based, but whose perspective is shaped

possibly on issues, 21.3% indicated that they might vote for the PNP compared to 15.7%


                                           530
for the JLP. Of this same group of voters, 25% reported a definitely preference for the

PNP with the JLP receiving the same percentage. The dissatisfaction with the political

system is higher for those with a PNP orientation as against with a JLP belief: 9% of

‘Definite’ PNP voters reported that they will not be vote in the upcoming elections

compared to 5.7% for JLP. Political culture is not static and so, of those who expressed a

leniency toward a party, the dissatisfaction is higher, again, for the PNP as 15% reported

that they will definitely not be voting in the upcoming general elections compared to 10%

for the JLP.


       The study found a positive statistical relationship between future voting behaviour

of those who are enumerated and past voting behaviour. The findings reveal that 75.5%

of those who are ‘sympathizers’ of the JLP support will retain this position in the

upcoming elections compared to 68.2% for the PNP. Continuing, of ‘Definite’ voters,

11.3% of the JLP supporters reported that they ‘probably’ will vote for their party

compared to 15.9% of the PNP supporters.




                                           531
       Social Class




                                             2
                           Upper class
                                                 4.4
          Social Class




                                                                  31.7                  2007
                          Middle class
                                                                    36.6                2006



                                                                                 66.3
                         Working class
                                                                            59



                                         0             20           40     60
                                                            Percentage



       Figure 1: Perceived Social Class for July-August 2006, and May 2007




       There appear to be important ‘class-related’ differences in Jamaicans’ election

preferences, yet they are paradoxical -- tending to have different effects depending on

whether one is looking at voting, party, or candidate preferences. Approximately 67% of

the respondents to the May 2007 survey perceived themselves to be in the “working

class” (i.e. the lower class), 28% in the “middle class”, 4% within the “upper-middle”

class, and 2% “upper class.”


       Although the survey shows PNP with a slight advantage in the vote across all of

the social classes, that advantage tends to be weakest and most vulnerable among the


                                                            532
lower class (38.2% PNP, 36.1% JLP), who make up approximately two-thirds of voting

age adults.        The PNP’s advantage is somewhat stronger among middle class voters

(35.6% PNP, 31.2% JLP), and is strongest among the ‘upper-middle’ and ‘upper’ class

voters (44.3% PNP, 31.1% JLP). With respect to ‘party identification’ (“which do you

consider yourself to be?”), PNP has a slight advantage among the lower (43.2% PNP,

39.6% JLP) and middle (38.6% PNP, 35.6% JLP) classes. However, in the “upper-

middle and upper class” category, JLP has the edge in party identification. (40.3% PNP,

43.5% JLP)


           Within the lower class, marginally more people believe that Simpson-Miller

(38.6%) “Would do a better job of running the country” compared to Golding (36.2%).

However more people within the middle class reported that Golding (37.4%) would do a

better job of running the country than Simpson-Miller (31.9%). Upper-middle and upper

class respondents, on the other hand, give Mrs. Simpson-Miller the nod over Mr. Golding

(40.3%, 33.8% respectively).


           Clearly, there is a class dimension to the voting preferences. Most of the sampled

population had completed secondary school (including traditional and non-traditional

high schools) (31.9%, n=459). 50 Approximately 23 % (n=333) of the respondents had at

least an undergraduate level training, with 13.4% being current students. Only 4.7% of

the sampled population (n=1,438) had mostly primary or preparatory level education.




           Political Socialization and Social Class


50
     This includes traditional and non-traditional high schools.


                                                       533
       Have you ever stopped to think about WHY you have the political beliefs and
       values you do? Where did they come from? Are they simply your own ideas or
       have others influenced you in your thinking? Political scientists call the process
       by which individuals acquire their political beliefs and attitudes "political
       socialization." What people think and how they come to think it is of critical
       importance to the stability and health of popular government. The beliefs and
       values of the people are the basis for a society's political culture and that culture
       defines the parameters of political life and governmental action (Mott, 2006).




       Unlike other species whose behaviour is instinctively driven, human beings rely

on social experiences to learn the nuances of their culture in order to survive (Macionis

and Plummer, 1998). “Social experience is also the foundation of personality, a person’s

fairly consistent patterns of thinking, feeling and acting” (Macionis and Plummer, 1998),

which is explained by Mott that political socialization helps to explain one’s attitude to

people, institution and governance. In cases where there is non-existence of social

experiences, as the case of a few individuals, personality does not emerge at all (Macionis

and Plummer, 1998). An example here is the wolf boy (Baron, Bryne and Branscombe

2006). They noted that a boy who was raised by wolves, when he was brought from that

situation into the space of human existence in which he was required to wear clothing and

other social events died in less than two years from frustration. This happening goes to

show the degree to which individuals are ‘culturalized’ by society, and that what makes

us humans is simply not mere physical existence but the consent of society of that which

is accepted as the definition of humans.


       Macionis and Plummer argued that Charles Darwin supports the view that human

nature leads us to create and learn cultural traits.   “The family is the most important

agent of socialization because it represents the centre of children’s lives” (Macionis and


                                           534
Plummer, 1998). Charles A Beard (in Tomlinson, 1964) believed that mothers should be

appropriately called “constant, carriers of common culture”; this emphasizes the very

principal tunnel to which mother guide their young, and they are equally conduits of the

transfer of values, norms, ideology and perspective on the world for their children.

Infants are almost totally dependent on others (family) for their survivability, and this

explain the pivotal role of parents and-or other family member. The socialization process

begins with the family, and more so those individuals to which the child will rely for

survival. This happening emphasizes the how the child is fashioned into a human, and

not merely because of birth. The child learns to speak, the language, actions, mode of

communication, value system, norms and the meaning of things through adoption,

repetition, and observation of the social actions of people within the environment. The

process of becoming a human is simply only performed by the family but other socio-

political agents.




        Our political upbringing is simply political socialization (Munroe, 2002).

Munroe suggests that the ways and means through which our views about politics and our

values in relation to politics are formed is part of our political socialization.   Munroe

states that, “It is also our upbringing that made us believe that politics is corrupt, dirty

and prone to violence.” The astute professor of governance, Trevor Munroe, shows that,

there are ranges of channels through which our political personalities are formed and

these are known as primary and secondary agents of political socialization. This is in

keeping with other scholars that argue that socialization albeit political or otherwise

shapes the belief system, the attribute, the customs, the culture and the norms of a group



                                            535
of people.      It is undoubtedly clear from Munroe’s, Macionis and Plummer’s and

Haralambos and Holborn’s positions that, individuals are directly and indirectly

influenced by the family, the school, the church, the mass media, political institutions and