Received: 21 May 2020 | Revised: 22 June 2020 | Accepted: 2 July 2020

DOI: 10.1111/aswp.12205

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Trust and well-being: Evidence from Indonesia

Emmanuel Nizeyumukiza1 | Adi Cilik Pierewan2 | Edmond Ndayambaje1 | Yulia Ayriza1

1
Department of Psychology, State University
of Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
2
Department of Sociology, State University
of Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Correspondence
Emmanuel Nizeyumukiza, Department of
Psychology, State University of Yogyakarta,
Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Email: emmanizeye90@gmail.com
Abstract
There is a growing empirical scholarship on the benefits of trust for well-being in
the literature. However, few studies have been conducted in the Indonesian context.
This study is intended at investigating the association between different measures
of trust and well-being in Indonesia using national representative data from the 5th
wave of the Indonesian Family Life Survey on a sample of 27,150 individuals. Multiple
regression was performed to calculate the estimates of this relationship. The main
findings revealed a small positive relationship of trust in neighbors with life satis-
faction and a small positive relationship of trust in police with life satisfaction and
happiness beyond the contribution of gender, age, level of education, marital status,
personality trait, economic status, and physical and mental health. This study sug-
gests that policies that can forge trustworthiness of neighborhoods and institutions
should be developed and prioritized.

KEYWORDS

happiness, Indonesia, life satisfaction, trust, well-being

1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N

Over the past three decades, the benefits of trust have been the subject of interest in many academic and scientific fields. Economists found
that trust enhances economic performance in a country by facilitating transactions and investments, by reducing unnecessary costs, and by
enhancing the quality of economic policies (Knack, 2001). Some researchers have estimated that trust has an income equivalent value (Helliwell
& Wang, 2011). Psychologists and social scientists found that trust facilitates connections and cooperation among people (Putnam, 1995), and
promotes social ties and networks (Churchill & Mishra, 2017). Moreover, trust correlates with happy life years measured by indexing life expec-
tancy and happiness (Pierewan & Veenhoven, 2018), and was found determinant of health (Kim, Baum, Ganz, Subramanian, & Kawachi, 2011)
and happiness (Pierewan & Tampubolon, 2014), both indicators of well-being.
Several studies have revealed a positive association between trust and well-being (Bjørnskov, 2003; Dolan, Peasgood, & White, 2008;
Helliwell, Huang, & Wang, 2016; Jovanović, 2016; Tokuda, Fuji, & Inoguchi, 2010; Yamamura, Tsutsui, Yamane, Yamane, & Powdthavee, 2015;
Alawiyah & Held, 2015). These benefits result from the cooperation and reciprocity among people who trust each other (Putnam, 1995). There
is a cultural value in Indonesia called gotong royong which literally means “mutual and reciprocal assistance,” which brings people in the villages
to interact and help mutually in different aspects of life (Bowen, 1986). This philosophy of life might facilitate trust through interactions among
people. Yet, few studies have investigated the relationship between trust and well-being of Indonesians, and those who did found inconclusive
results. In two studies, a small positive association was found between trust and well-being (Ndayambaje, Pierewan, Nizeyumukiza, Nkundimana,
& Ayriza, 2020; Pierewan & Veenhoven, 2018). In contrast, two other studies found the relationship between trust in neighbors and happiness
insignificant (Rahayu, 2016; Rahayu & Harmadi, 2016). One more study, addressing the issue of endogeneity, found no relationship between
social trust and happiness in Indonesia (Sohn, 2013). Given the limited studies and the inconclusive results in Indonesia, the purpose of this study

Asian Soc Work Pol Rev. 2020;00:1–10. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/aswp© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd | 1
2 | NIZEYUMUKIZA et al.

is to contribute to the literature by investigating the relationship between different measures of trust, namely trust in neighbors, trust in police,
and trust in strangers, and well-being using national representative data from the 5th wave of the Indonesian Family Life Survey.

1.1 | Defining and measuring trust and well-being

Trust is a psychological state where one accepts to be vulnerable based on positive expectations toward intentions or behaviors of another
(Rousseau, Sitkin, & Burt, 1998). Trust is a shared reciprocity on a given intention between two or more individuals or institutions, and Putnam
(1995) states that trust facilitates cooperation and coordination. Thus, trust has implications not only for individuals but also for social cohe-
sion (Gheorghui, Vignoles, & Smith, 2009). The literature differentiates between general trust and narrow trust. Narrow trust includes trust in
neighbors, in the police, in institutions, and in workplace. (Helliwell et al., 2016).
Empirical studies have used distinct measures of trust (Helliwell et al., 2016). Initially, the question used was “generally speaking, would
you say that most people can be trusted?” with a yes or no option. The European Social Survey asks the same question but on a scale of 0 to
10. Other scholars have used narrower questions of trust: trust in neighbors, in police, and in workplace or institutions (Helliwell et al., 2016).
Probably, the most used question by different big social (the Gallup World Poll, the World Value Survey, and the European Social Survey)
surveys is “suppose you lost your wallet with 200$ in it, how likely is it to be returned to you if it was found by your neighbor, the police or a
stranger” (Helliwell et al., 2016). This question reflects trust in neighbors, trust in the police, and trust in strangers. Evidence showed that all
kinds of trust have positive effects on well-being (Helliwell & Putnam, 2004).
Same as trust, well-being is differently defined and measured in the literature. For example, there is interchangeability of the term well-be-
ing with other terms such as happiness, subjective well-being, or quality of life (Veenhoven, 2012). In defining well-being, the literature eluci-
dates two concepts: life evaluation and psychological functioning. Life evaluation is concerned with the degree to which an individual thinks
he/she is satisfied with life what Veenhoven (2012) calls life satisfaction as synonymous of overall happiness. This approach is based on the
principle of hedonism (Ryan & Deci, 2001) and explains well-being in terms of pleasure versus pain experienced by individuals. Psychological
functioning, on the other hand, is based on the principle of eudemonia which invites individuals to live in accordance with their true selves
thriving toward excellence (Ryff, 1989).
Based on the same concept of eudemonia, Ryff and Singer (2007) proposed six facets of measuring psychological well-being: autonomy,
personal growth, self-acceptance, life purpose, environmental mastery, and positive relationships. More recently, Seligman (2010) published
a flourishing theory in which he introduces his PERMA model for measuring psychological well-being. The PERMA model includes positive
emotions (P), engagement (E), relationships (R), meaning (M), and accomplishment (A).
However, more attention is paid on measures of subjective well-being as they are widely used in big social surveys. On the one hand, sub-
jective well-being, usually abbreviated as SWB, is measured based upon a combination of life satisfaction, and positive and negative affects
(Diener, 1984). On the other hand, many empirical studies have relied on single-item measures. For example, the European Social Survey in-
cludes this item for happiness: “on a scale of 0 to 10, taking all things together, how happy would you say you are?” or the World Values Survey
that asks respondents to report their life satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 10 (Helliwell et al., 2016) or the Indonesian Family Life Survey that asks
how is one satisfied with his/her life with answers ranging from not at all satisfied to completely satisfied (Strauss, Witoelar, & Sikoki, 2016).

1.2 | Empirical evidence of the relationship between trust and well-being

Many empirical studies have revealed a strong positive association of trust with well-being. Dolan et al. (2008) conducted a literature review
on the determinants of subjective well-being on papers that used only big datasets from 1990 until 2006. All papers that investigated trust
and well-being found a strong association. Another study sought to establish a relationship between different types of trust and subjective
well-being with data from three large datasets: the Gallup World Poll, the European Social Survey, and the World Values Survey (Helliwell
et al., 2016). The results evidenced a positive effect of trust on well-being: social trust and trust in the police having the strongest effects.
Moreover, it was found that trust has resilience-enhancing characteristics. In trustful environments, people were more resilient after stressful
events.
Trust came to be increased after disaster in areas where it was sufficiently distributed before the disaster. Yamamura et al. (2015) inves-
tigated the links of trust and happiness before and after the 2011 earthquake in Japan. Based on data from the Global Centre of Excellence
(GCOE), they found a significant positive relationship between trust and happiness, and this relationship was stronger in the most hit places.
This suggests that trust behaves to mitigate the negative impact of disaster on individuals' well-being. Similarly, after the global crisis that
began in 2007, countries with high social capital had higher levels of happiness than countries with lower social capital who faced serious
consequences and a decline in well-being (Helliwell, Huang, & Wang, 2013). Furthermore, in Chile, after the earthquake of 2010, it was
NIZEYUMUKIZA et al. | 3

found that areas that were hit the most had increased trust especially in areas with high trust before the disaster (Dussaillant & Guzmán,
2014).
A society lacking trust tends to be driven by violence in times of unexpected shocking events. The explanation may be that distrustful
relations among individuals behave to amplify the negative individual experiences following unexpected shocks. This is what was observed in
Haiti after the Earthquake in 2010 (Yamamura et al. (2015). In distrustful areas where drug markets are prevalent in the United States, deviant
and non-cooperative behaviors were observed during Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Drug dealers continued their activities risking their lives, the
lives of community members, and the lives of humanitarian aid workers (Dunlap & Golub, 2011). Thus, the experiences of a disaster in such a
community get worse and worsen the overall well-being of the community.
The benefits of trust for well-being are recognized globally; however, the relationship seems to be stronger in developed countries. A
study examined the links between well-being and social capital in developing and developed countries (Calvo, Zheng, Kumar, Olgiati, &
Berkman, 2012). The data used were from the Gallup World Poll covering 142 developing and developed countries. The study revealed that
the positive effect of social trust on subjective well-being was stronger in developed countries compared to developing countries. Likewise,
Bjørnskov (2003) investigated why some countries are happier than others using data from the World Value Survey. The results demonstrated
that generalized trust had a strong effect on happiness at the country level. Countries with more social capital had higher levels of happiness,
suggesting that social capital is a strong factor to explain happiness inequality across countries. However, this association was clearer for de-
veloped societies than for less developed societies.
Evidence from developing countries seems to suggest a small positive relationship between trust and subjective well-being as well. Kirmani
and Ankitha (2017) investigated the relationship between interpersonal trust and happiness among a sample of young adults. They reported a
small but positive correlation between interpersonal trust and happiness. In Serbia, Jovanović (2016) found a small association between insti-
tutional trust and positive affect. However, the same study reported a moderate association between interpersonal trust and positive affect
and life satisfaction. In a study involving 29 Asian countries, Tokuda et al. (2010) found a positive but small association between social trust and
happiness. In Indonesia, among the characteristics found to correlate with happy life years measured by indexing life expectancy and scores
of happiness across all the provinces, trust got a small but significant correlation (Pierewan & Veenhoven, 2018).
Despite the great number of studies investigating the relationship between trust and well-being, few have been conducted in Indonesia,
and based on these above-mentioned previous studies, we can anticipate that the association between trust and well-being in Indonesia is
positive but small. The possible reasons behind shall be discussed later on. Thus, this study intends to make important contributions to the
literature. First, it provides new knowledge about the relationship between different measures of trust and well-being in Indonesia. Second,
the study discusses the results in the Indonesian context.

2 | M E TH O DS

2.1 | Data

The data come from the Indonesian Family Life Survey (IFLS), the 5th wave which took place in late 2014 and early 2015. IFLS is an ongoing
socioeconomic and health survey representing around 83% of the entire Indonesian population (Strauss et al., 2016). It provides data informa-
tion on individuals, their families, households, communities, and education, as well as on health.

2.2 | Sample

In this study, we used the 5th wave being the most recent wave of the survey. IFLS5 collected information on 16,204 households and 50,148
individuals living in 13 provinces of Indonesia (Strauss et al., 2016). In this study, the sample was restricted to individuals who completed data
on trust, happiness, and life satisfaction. After correcting missing data for life satisfaction, happiness, trust in neighbors, trust in police, and
trust in strangers, a sample of 27,150 individuals was yielded.

2.3 | Measures

2.3.1 | Outcome variables

Subjective well-being served as the outcome and was measured using life satisfaction and happiness scores. Life satisfaction was measured by
a single question that asked respondents to think about their lives as a whole and to give an estimation of how satisfied they are with it (Strauss
4 | NIZEYUMUKIZA et al.

et al., 2016). The answers were on a Likert scale ranging from 1—not at all satisfied to 5—completely satisfied. Happiness was also measured
using a single question that asked respondents to rate their level of happiness in the previous days (Strauss et al., 2016). Potential answers were
also on a Likert scale ranging from 1—very unhappy to 4—very happy.

2.3.2 | Independent variables

Trust served as an explanatory variable in this analysis. Three kinds of trust were distinctly measured: trust in neighbors, trust in police, and
trust in strangers. The respondents were asked the following question: “say you lost your wallet or a purse that contained Rp 200.000 and
your identity card, think about how is it likely to be returned with the money if it was found by someone who lives close to you, by the police
or by a stranger” (Strauss et al., 2016). The answers were coded on a Likert scale (1, for very unlikely; 2, somewhat unlikely; 3, for somewhat
likely; and 4, for very likely).

2.3.3 | Control variables

There has been evidence of the relationships between gender, marital status, age, level of education, unemployment, personality traits, smok-
ing behaviors, religiosity, economic status, physical health, mental health, and subjective well-being. Therefore, we intend to control for these
potential confounders of the relationship between trust and well-being.
Gender will be added to the analysis to account for the variability of well-being between gender. Females were found to report higher
levels of well-being than men around the world (Graham & Chattopadhyay, 2013). Gender is coded with dummy variable (1) for males and (0)
for females. Age is a significant predictor of subjective well-being (Stone, Schwartz, Broderick, & Deaton, 2010). Marital status affects sub-
jective well-being across cultures (Diener, Gohm, Suh, & Oishi, 2000). In this analysis, we coded (1) for married and (0) for unmarried (single,
widow, and divorced). The level of education seems to relate to subjective well-being (Kuroki, 2011). Education was coded based on the level
of education achieved by respondents: (1) for elementary school and equivalents, (2) for junior high school and equivalents, (3) for senior high
school and equivalents, and (4) for high education. Unemployment is negatively related to subjective well-being (Andersen, 2009). The working
group was taken as categorical reference and was coded 0, and those searching jobs and housekeepers were taken as unemployed and were
coded 1. Churchill and Farrell (2017) found that smoking was associated with low levels of happiness. The survey asked respondents whether
they smoke cigarettes or cigar. A dummy variable (1) was entered for yes and (0) for no. Using data from the Canadian Ethnic Diversity Survey,
Dilmaghani (2017) found that religiosity was significantly associated with subjective well-being. The survey asked respondents to rate how
religious they are. The possible answers were very religious, somewhat religious, rather religious, and not religious. Two categories were made
and given dummy codes (1) for religious and (0) for not religious.
The variability of subjective well-being across personality traits is incontestable (Lucas, 2018). Personality traits were measured with
the Big Five Inventory, short version (Rammstedt & John, 2007). A strong relationship between economic status and well-being was found
in developing countries (Howell & Howell, 2008). The survey asked the following question: “Please imagine a six-step ladder where on the
bottom (the first step), stand the poorest people, and on the highest step (the sixth step), stand the richest people. On which step are you
today?” (Strauss et al., 2016). Possible answers range between 1 (the poorest) and 6 (the richest). The relationship between health status and
subjective well-being is well known (Ngamaba, Panagioti, & Armitage, 2017). A dummy variable (1) was used for answers very healthy and
somewhat healthy, and (0) for answers somewhat unhealthy and very unhealthy. As the World Health Organization slogan says, there is no
health without mental health; the association between mental health and subjective well-being is indisputable (Machado, Oliveira, Peregrino,
& Cantilino, 2019). Mental health was measured using the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, short version with 10 items
(Andresen, Malmgren, Carter, & Patrick, 1994).

2.4 | Statistical analysis

Both data management and analysis were carried out with R statistical software (Fox & Leanage, 2016). Descriptive statistics for the outcome
variables, explanatory variables, and confounders are summarized in Table 1. Concerning the multivariate analysis, two models of multivariate
regression were performed. The first model included life satisfaction as the dependent variables, and the second model included happiness
as the dependent variables.
NIZEYUMUKIZA et al. | 5

3 | R E S U LT S

3.1 | Descriptive statistics

The descriptive statistics can be found in Table 1. The average age was 38.64 (SD = 13.9, range = 18–90). The mean score for life satisfaction
was 3.32 (SD = 0.79, range = 1–5). The average score for happiness was 3.05 (SD = 0.45, range = 1–4). The average score was 2.8 (SD = 1.07,
range = 1–4) for trust in neighbors, 3.11 (SD = 0.99, range = 1–4) for trust in the police, and 1.67 (SD = 0.9, range = 1–4) for trust in strangers.
Respondents reported being more trustful in the police than in neighbors or strangers.
Forty-seven percent of respondents were male, 78% were married, and 22% were not married. 37% completed elementary school, 23%
completed junior high school, 35% finished senior high school, and 5% finished high education. Around 31% were unemployed. Around 95%
were smokers. More than 72% of respondents reported that they were religious. Around 78% of the respondents reported being healthy.
The average scores were 7.18 (SD = 1.33, range = 2–10) for extraversion, 7.56 (SD = 1.22, range = 2–10) for agreeableness, 7.71 (SD = 1.23,
range = 2–10) for conscientiousness, 4.86 (SD = 1.36, range = 2–10) for neuroticism, and 5.55 (SD = 1.24, range = 2–10) for openness. The
average score for economic status was 3.02 (SD = 0.98, range = 1–6). The average score for depression was 6.35 (SD = 4.7, range = 0–30).

3.2 | Multivariate analysis

The results of multivariate analysis with a set of covariates are found in Table 2 for life satisfaction and happiness. Results of the multiple re-
gression after controlling for confounding variables showed that trust in neighbors was significantly associated with life satisfaction (β = 0.02,
p < .01) and was positive but not significant for happiness (β = 0.00, p > .05). On the other hand, the association of trust in police was signifi-
cant with happiness (β = 0.01, p < .01) and with life satisfaction (β = 0.01, p < .05). Trust in strangers was positive but not significant for both
life satisfaction and happiness.
Most of the control variables exhibited significant associations with life satisfaction and happiness as well. However, we found no gender
differences in happiness and life satisfaction. Evidence of association was found between age, life satisfaction, and happiness. Older adults
were the least satisfied with life (β = −0.19, p < .001). Those who are middle-aged were less satisfied with life (β = −0.17, p < .001) compared
to younger adults. In terms of happiness, middle-aged and older adults were the least happy compared to younger adults (β = −0.17, p < .001
and β = −0.12, p < .01), respectively Table 2.
No significant association was found between education and life satisfaction. In terms of happiness, those who completed high school
and high education were the happiest (β = 0.03, ρ < 0.01 and β = 0.07, p < .05, respectively). Married people were happier than unmarried
(β = 0.15, p < .001). They were also more satisfied with life, but the difference was not significant. The association between smoking, happi-
ness, and life satisfaction was found positive but not significant.
Unemployment was inversely associated with both life satisfaction and happiness (β=−0.06, p < .05 and β = −0.05, p < .01), respectively.
Religious individuals were more satisfied with life than their counterparts (β = 0.11, p < .001). The association of personality traits was found
significant with happiness and life satisfaction. Extraversion was significantly associated with happiness (β = 0.01, p < .001). A negative small
but significant association was found between neuroticism and happiness (β = −0.00, p < .05). A positive association was found between
conscientiousness and both life satisfaction and happiness (β = 0.01, p < .05 and β = 0.01, p < .05, respectively). As expected, depression
was negatively associated with both life satisfaction (β = −0.01, p < .001) and happiness (β = −0.00, p < .001). Being healthy was positively
associated with life satisfaction and happiness. The size of the association was stronger for life satisfaction (β = 0.16, p < .001) than it was for
happiness (β = 0.07, p < .001). As it can be expected in a developing country, a positive association was found between economic status and
life satisfaction (β = 0.16, p < .001) and happiness (β = 0.07, p < .001).

4 | D I S CU S S I O N

Trust is found globally to have a positive association with well-being. However, few studies have been conducted in Indonesia. Using nation-
ally representative data, this study examined this association in Indonesia. The main findings revealed a small positive relationship of trust in
neighbors with life satisfaction and a small positive relationship of trust in police with life satisfaction and happiness beyond the contribution
of gender, age, level of education, marital status, personality trait, economic status, and physical and mental health. These results yield two
issues that need to be understood in the Indonesian context.
First, some associations were found insignificant. Trust in neighbors did not associate with happiness. Rahayu and Harmadi (2016) found
no association between trust in neighbors and happiness and emphasized that despite the tradition of gotong royong, most Indonesians are not
willing to leave their children or their houses to their neighbors when they have to go out. No association is found between trust in strangers
6 | NIZEYUMUKIZA et al.

TA B L E 1 Summary of study variables and the prevalence of life satisfaction and happiness

Life satisfaction Happiness

Study variable n %/Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Range

Life satisfaction 27,150 3.32 (0.78) 1–5

Happiness 27,150 3.05 (0.45) 1–4
Trust in neighbors 27,150 2.88 (1.07) 1–4
Trust in police 27,150 3.11 (0.99) 1–4
Trust in strangers 27,150 1.67 (0.90) 1–4
Economic status 27,150 3.03 (0.98) 1–6
Extraversion 27,025 7.18 (1.33) 2–10
Agreeableness 27,025 7.56 (1.22) 2–10
Conscientiousness 27,025 7.71 (1.23) 2–10
Neuroticism 27,025 4.87 (1.36) 2–10
Openness 27,025 5.55 (1.24) 2–10
Depression 27,026 6.35 (6.77) 0–30
Age (years) 27,150 38.6 (13.9) 18–90
18–35 13,164 48.4 3.39 (0.78) 3.12 (0.44) 1–5, 1–4
36–45 749 2.9 3.27 (0.75) 3.07 (0.43) 1–5, 1–4
46–65 6,474 23.8 3.24 (0.80) 2.97 (0.46) 1–5, 1–4
66–90 6,763 24.9 3.25 (0.81) 3.01 (0.46) 1–5, 1–4
Gender
Female 14,411 53 3.37 (0.78) 3.06 (0.45) 1–5, 1–4
Male 12,739 47 3.26 (0.81) 3.05 (0.45) 1–5, 1–4
Marital status
Married 21,239 78 3.30 (0.80) 2.98 (0.47) 1–5, 1–4
Unmarried 5,911 22 3.32 (0.79) 3.07 (0.44) 1–5, 1–4
Education
Primary 8,048 37 3.23 (0.84) 2.99 (0.48) 1–5, 1–4
Junior high school 5,089 23.4 3.32 (0.78) 3.05 (0.42) 1–5, 1–4
Senior high school 7,528 34.6 3.33 (0.77) 3.09 (0.42) 1–5, 1–4
High education 1,093 5 3.43 (0.70) 3.14 (0.43) 1–5, 1–4
Smoking
Yes 9,709 95.7 3.13 (0.77) 2.87 (0.48) 1–5, 1–4
No 435 4.3 3.23 (0.83) 3.04 (0.46)
Unemployment
Yes 8,246 31.5 3.34 (0.79) 3.05 (0.45) 1–5, 1–4
No 17,961 68.5 3.31 (0.79) 3.06 (0.45) 1–5, 1–4
Self-rated health
Healthy 21,275 78.6 3.37 (0.77) 3.09 (0.43) 1–5, 1–4
Unhealthy 5,766 21.4 0.12 (0.84) 2.94 (051) 1–5, 1–4
Religious
Yes 16,456 2.8 3.34 (0.77) 3.05 (0.43) 1–5, 1–4
No 6,142 27.2 3.16 (0.79) 3.01 (0.45) 1–5, 1–4

and well-being. Indonesia presents a landscape of religious and ethnic diversity. Mavridis (2015) observed that Indonesians believed that their
lost wallet would be more likely to be returned if it was found by someone from their ethnicity. The same study reported that the willingness to
leave children depended on the prevalence of their ethnicity in the area, indicating that people are more likely to trust people of own ethnicity.
NIZEYUMUKIZA et al. | 7

TA B L E 2 Results of linear regression predicting life satisfaction and happiness

Life Satisfaction Happiness

Coefficients SE Coefficients SE
*** ***
(Constant) 2.30 0.15 2.40 0.07
*
Trust in neighbors 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
Trust in police 0.01* 0.00 0.01** 0.00
Trust in strangers 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.00
Economic status 0.16*** 0.01 0.07*** 0.00
Extraversion 0.01 0.00 0.01*** 0.00
Agreeableness 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
* *
Conscientiousness 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00
Neuroticism −0.00 0.00 −0.00* 0.00
Openness 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Depression −0.01*** 0.00 −0.00*** 0.01
Gender (ref. female)
Male −0.08 0.05 −0.00 0.02
Age (ref. 18–35)
36–45 −0.17*** 0.05 −0.10*** 0.02
*** ***
46–65 −0.17 0.02 −0.17 0.03
66–90 −0.19*** 0.02 −0.12*** 0.04
Education (ref. elem. school)
Junior HS −0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01
**
Senior HS 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.01
High Education 0.02 0.05 0.07* 0.03
Marital status (ref. unmarried)
Married 0.02 0.02 0.15*** 0.01
Smoking (ref. non-smoking)
Smoking 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.03
Unemployment (ref. employed)
Unemployed −0.06* 0.03 −0.05** 0.01
Religiosity (ref. non-religious)
Religious 0.11*** 0.02 0.01 0.01
Self-rated health (ref. unhealthy)
Healthy 0.16*** 0.02 0.07*** 0.01
2
R .08 .10

*ρ < 5%.
**ρ < 1%.
***ρ < 0.1%.

In addition, Gaduh (2012) reported that religious diversity in a community was negatively associated with trust in Indonesia, which indicates
that people are more likely to trust people of the same religion.
Second, the positive association found between trust in neighbors and life satisfaction and between trust in police and both indicators of
well-being is relatively small. As Indonesia is a developing country, this confirms the findings of Calvo et al., (2012) and Bjørnskov (2003) that
the association of trust with well-being in developing countries is small. The mechanisms by which the association between trust and well-be-
ing is smaller in developing countries are not well known; however, some interpretation can be provided. For example, the hierarchy of needs
elaborated by Maslow (1954) can bring some insights. Living in a country where basic needs are not fulfilled, one may be concerned with look-
ing for economic security in the first place. Therefore, fulfilling these basic needs might be much more important for well-being than trusting
and interacting with others. In wealthier countries where basic needs are fulfilled, trust, belongingness, and social ties are more important in
the search for happiness. In a study involving 48 countries, Delhey (2010) observed post-materialistic values of life satisfaction when moving
8 | NIZEYUMUKIZA et al.

from poorer to richer countries. Likewise, Inglehart (2000) reported an increase in subjective well-being when moving from a developing to a
developed country but stated that beyond a moderate threshold, income does not correlate with happiness. This indicates that once the eco-
nomic security is attained, the well-being of people derives from post-materialistic values. This might explain the differences in the size of the
relationship between trust and well-being in developing and developed countries. Similarly, the findings of this study showed that the associa-
tion between economic status and life satisfaction is eight times stronger than the association between trust in neighbors and life satisfaction
holding other variables constant. This emphasizes the importance of economic security for well-being of people in a developing country.

4.1 | Implications, limitations, and future directions

The purpose of the current study was to examine the relationship between different measures of trust and well-being in Indonesia. While we
found a small relationship between some measures of trust and well-being in Indonesia, it is worthy to note that trust accounts for variability
in the well-being of people. Although it was not the focus of the study, it seems that this relationship is not straightforward, passing through
other indicators such as ethnic and religious diversity. It is important to know how trust interacts with diversity in affecting well-being in
Indonesia. Therefore, future studies should examine the interactions between these two variables. This way, the results might inform in a bet-
ter way social policies. Meanwhile, this study suggests that policies that can forge trustworthiness of neighborhoods and institutions should
be developed and prioritized, taking into account ethnic and religious diversity. Bowen (1986) highlighted the important role the tradition of
gotong royong might play in creating active communities and reciprocity in neighborhoods in Indonesia. As a result, social workers might use
this tradition in addressing the search for well-being of Indonesians. Besides this, we found that economic status is stronger than trust in
explaining well-being; therefore, efforts to reduce inequality, to generate income and economic stability in the general population, are highly
encouraged. In fact, these two concepts are related. Trust can facilitate economic transactions (Knack, 2001) which might enhance economic
capabilities, which in turn might lead to well-being of people.
This study has some limitations that must be acknowledged. First, even though the data used are nationally representative, they are
cross-sectional. Thus, no causal associations can be made. Future studies are encouraged to use longitudinal designs. Second, despite the
important number of confounding variables included in the analysis, some other variables may have gone undetected. Third, the study used
data from a single country, comparative studies might bring much more insights.

AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S
This study used secondary data from IFLS 5th wave conducted by RAND Corporation (http://www.rand.org/labor/​FLS/IFLS.html). We are
thankful to RAND Corporation who provided free access to the data and to the Indonesian respondents who answered the survey.

ORCID
Emmanuel Nizeyumukiza https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1140-9453

REFERENCES
Alawiyah, T., &Held, M. L. (2015). Social capital: promoting health and well-being among Indonesian women. Journal of Women and Social Work, 30(95),
352–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/08861​09915​572842
Andersen, S. (2009). Unemployment and subjective well-being: A question of class? Work and Occupations, 36(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/07308​
88408​327131
Andresen, E. M., Malmgren, J. A., Carter, W. B., & Patrick, D. L. (1994). Screening for depression in well older adults: evaluation of a short form of the
CES-D. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 10(2), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749​-3797(18)30622​-6
Bjørnskov, C. (2003). The Happy Few : Cross-Country Evidence on Social Capital and Life Satisfaction. Kyklos, 56, 3–16.
Bowen, J. R. (1986). On the political construction of tradition : Gotong Royong in Indonesia. The Journal of Asian Studies, 45(3), 545–561.
Calvo, R., Zheng, Y., Kumar, S., Olgiati, A., & Berkman, L. (2012). Well-being and social capital on planet earth. Cross- national evidence from 142 coun-
tries. PLoS One, 7(8), e42793.https://doi.org/10.1371/journ​al.pone.0042793
Churchill, S. A., & Farrell, L. (2017). Investigating the relationship between smoking and subjective welfare. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental
Economics, 71, 1–12.
Churchill, S. A., & Mishra, V. (2017). Trust, social networks and subjective well-being in China. Social Indicators Research, 132(1), 313–339. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s1120​5-015-1220-2
Delhey, J. (2010). From materialist to post-materialist happiness ? National affluence and determinants of life satisfaction in cross-national perspective.
Social Indicators Research, 97, 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1120​5-009-9558-y
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
Diener, E., Gohm, C. L., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (2000). Similarity of the relations between marital status and subjective well-being across cultures. Journal
of Cross Cultural Psychology, 31, 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220​22100​03100​4 001
Dilmaghani, M. (2017). Religiosity and subjective well-being in Canada. Journal of Happiness Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/s1090​2-016-9837-7
Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. (2008). Do we really know what makes us happy ? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated
with subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 94–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2007.09.001
NIZEYUMUKIZA et al. | 9

Dunlap, E., & Golub, A. (2011). Drug markets during the Katrina disaster. Disaster Prevention and Management, 20(3), 251–265. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09653​56111​1141709
Dussaillant, F., & Guzmán, E. (2014). Trust via disasters: The case of Chile's 2010 earthquake. Disasters, 38(4), 808–832. https://doi.org/10.1111/
disa.12077
Fox, J., & Leanage, A. (2016). R and the Journal of Statistical Software. Journal of Statistical Software, 73(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.18637/​jss.v073.i02
Gaduh, A. (2012). Uniter or Divider ? Religion and Social Cooperation: Evidence from Indonesia. SSRN Electronic Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.1991484
Gheorghui, M. A., Vignoles, V. L., & Smith, P. B. (2009). Beyond the United States and Japan: Testing Yamagishi's emancipation theory of trust across 31
nations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72(4), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/01902​72509​07200408
Graham, C., & Chattopadhyay, S. (2013). Gender and well-being around the world. International Journal of Happiness and Development, 1(2), 212–232.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHD.2013.055648
Helliwell, J. F., Huang, H., & Wang, S. (2013). Social capital and well-being in times of crisis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 145–162. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s1090​2-013-9441-z
Helliwell, J. F., Huang, H., & Wang, S. (2016). New evidence on trust and well-being (No. 22450). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/paper​s/w22450
Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2004). The social context of well-being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London, 359, 1435–1446. https://
doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1522
Helliwell, J. F., & Wang, S. (2011). Trust and well-being. International Journal of Well-being, 1(1), 42–78.
Howell, R. T., & Howell, C. J. (2008). The relation of economic status to subjective well-being in developing countries : A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 134(4), 536–560. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.536
Inglehart, R. (2000). Globalization and postmodern values. The Washington Quarterly, 23(1), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1162/01636​60005​60665
Jovanović, V. (2016). Trust and subjective well-being: The case of Serbia. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 284–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2016.04.061
Kim, D., Baum, C. F., Ganz, M. L., Subramanian, S. V., & Kawachi, I. (2011). The contextual effects of social capital on health: A cross-national instrumen-
tal variable analysis. Social Science and Medicine, 73(12), 1689–1697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socsc​imed.2011.09.019
Kirmani, M. N., & Ankitha, U. (2017). Interpersonal trust and happiness among young adults: A correlational study. International Journal of Public Mental
Health, 4(1). http://sarva​sumana.in/Vol4i​s1.html
Knack, S. (2001). Trust, associational life and economic performance. In J. F. Helliwell & A. Bonikowska (Eds.), The contribution of human and social capital
to sustained economic growth and well being (pp. 172–202). Ottawa: HRDC and OECD. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenc​hen.de/27247/
Kuroki, M. (2011). Does social trust increase individual happiness in Japan. The Japanese Economic Review, 62(4), 444–459. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1468-5876.2011.00533.x
Lucas, R. E. (2018). Exploring the associations between personality and subjective well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-be-
ing.Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers. https://nobas​cholar.com/chapt​ers/3
Machado, L., De Oliveira, I. R., Peregrino, A., & Cantilino, A. (2019). Common mental disorders and subjective well-being : Emotional training among
medical students based on positive psychology. PLoS One, 14(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journ​al.pone.0211926
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper.
Mavridis, D. (2015). Ethnic diversity and social capital in Indonesia. World Development, 67, 376–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.world​dev.2014.10.028
Ndayambaje, E., Pierewan, A. C., Nizeyumukiza, E., Nkundimana, B., & Ayriza, Y. (2020). Marital status and subjective well-being: does education level
take into account? Cakrawala Pendidikan, 39(1), 120–132. https://doi.org/10.21831/​cp.v39i1.29620
Ngamaba, K. H., Panagioti, M., & Armitage, C. J. (2017). How strongly related are health status and subjective well-being ? Systematic review and me-
ta-analysis. European Journal of Public Health, 27(5), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpu​b/ckx081
Pierewan, A. C., & Tampubolon, G. (2014). Happiness and Health in Europe: A multivariate multilevel model. Applied Research Quality Life, 10(2), 237–
252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1148​2-014-9309-3
Pierewan, A. C., & Veenhoven, R. (2018). Quality of life in provinces in Indonesia as measured with happy life years. Retrieved from EHERO Working paper
2018–4.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America´s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6, 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1995.0002
Rahayu, T. P. (2016). The determinants of happiness in Indonesia. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.5901/
mjss.2016.v7n2p393
Rahayu, T. P., & Harmadi, S. H. B. (2016). The effect of income, health, education, and social capital on happiness in Indonesia. Asian Social Science, 12(7),
75. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v12n7p75
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less : A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and
German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001
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(3), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926617
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potential: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 141–166.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it ? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
57(6), 1069–1081.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (2007). The contours of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532​7965p​li0901_1
Seligman, M. (2010). Flourish: Positive psychology and positive interventions. The tanner lectures on human values (pp. 1–243). Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Sohn, K. (2013). Sources of happiness in Indonesia. The Singapore Economic Review, 58(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217​59081​3500148
Stone, A. A., Schwartz, J. E., Broderick, J. E., & Deaton, A. (2010). A snapshot of the age distribution of psychological well-being in the United States.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(22), 9985–9990. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.10037​4 4107
Strauss, J., Witoelar, F., & Sikoki, B. (2016). User’s guide for the Indonesia Family Life Survey, Wave 5 (Vol. 2). Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/
worki​ng_paper​s/WR114​3z2.html
10 | NIZEYUMUKIZA et al.

Tokuda, Y., Fuji, S., & Inoguchi, T. (2010). Individual and country-level effects of social trust on happiness: The Asia Barometer Survey. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 40(10), 2574–2593.
Veenhoven, R. (2012). Happiness, also known as “Life Satisfaction” and “Subjective Well-Being”. In K. Land, A. Michalos, & J. M. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook
of social indicators and quality of life Research, (63–77). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2421-1_3
Yamamura, E., Tsutsui, Y., Yamane, C., Yamane, S., & Powdthavee, N. (2015). Trust and happiness: Comparative study before and after the Great East
Japan Earthquake. Social Indicators Research, 123(3), 919–935.

How to cite this article: Nizeyumukiza E, Cilik Pierewan A, Ndayambaje E, Ayriza Y. Trust and well-being: Evidence from Indonesia.
Asian Soc Work Pol Rev. 2020;00:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/aswp.12205