The paper "Measuring Trust" by Edward L. Glaeser, David I. Laibson, José A. Scheinkman, and Christine L. Souter explores the measurement of trust and trustworthiness through experiments and surveys. The authors combine two experiments and a survey to assess these key components of social capital. Standard attitudinal survey questions about trust predict trustworthy behavior in experiments better than they predict trusting behavior. Past trusting behavior outside the experiments is a better predictor of trusting behavior in experiments. Social proximity increases both trust and trustworthiness, while differences in race or nationality reduce trustworthiness. High-status individuals elicit more trustworthiness from others. The study uses a survey of 258 Harvard undergraduates followed by two experimental games: the "Trust Game" and the "Envelope Drop." In the Trust Game, subjects are paired and given the opportunity to send money to their partner, who can then return it. The Envelope Drop involves subjects reporting valuations for envelopes dropped by an experimenter, which measures trust in anonymous strangers. The authors find that attitudinal survey questions about trusting strangers predict trust in both games, while broader trust questions do not. Past trusting behavior is a better predictor of trusting behavior in the Trust Game and trustworthiness in the Envelope Drop. The experiments also reveal that social connections, race, and status significantly influence trust and trustworthiness. For example, subjects with more social connections send and receive more money, while those of different races or nationalities send less money. High-status individuals elicit more trustworthiness from others. The paper concludes that the standard attitudinal survey questions about trust may be more useful for predicting trustworthiness than trust itself, suggesting that trustworthiness is a more stable and reliable measure of social capital.The paper "Measuring Trust" by Edward L. Glaeser, David I. Laibson, José A. Scheinkman, and Christine L. Souter explores the measurement of trust and trustworthiness through experiments and surveys. The authors combine two experiments and a survey to assess these key components of social capital. Standard attitudinal survey questions about trust predict trustworthy behavior in experiments better than they predict trusting behavior. Past trusting behavior outside the experiments is a better predictor of trusting behavior in experiments. Social proximity increases both trust and trustworthiness, while differences in race or nationality reduce trustworthiness. High-status individuals elicit more trustworthiness from others. The study uses a survey of 258 Harvard undergraduates followed by two experimental games: the "Trust Game" and the "Envelope Drop." In the Trust Game, subjects are paired and given the opportunity to send money to their partner, who can then return it. The Envelope Drop involves subjects reporting valuations for envelopes dropped by an experimenter, which measures trust in anonymous strangers. The authors find that attitudinal survey questions about trusting strangers predict trust in both games, while broader trust questions do not. Past trusting behavior is a better predictor of trusting behavior in the Trust Game and trustworthiness in the Envelope Drop. The experiments also reveal that social connections, race, and status significantly influence trust and trustworthiness. For example, subjects with more social connections send and receive more money, while those of different races or nationalities send less money. High-status individuals elicit more trustworthiness from others. The paper concludes that the standard attitudinal survey questions about trust may be more useful for predicting trustworthiness than trust itself, suggesting that trustworthiness is a more stable and reliable measure of social capital.