Building Trust in Governmental and Educational Authorities in Adolescence: A Comparison of Early, Middle, and Late Adolescents in Four European Countries

Background

Trust in authorities is a fundamental component of adolescent development, predicting essential outcomes ranging from academic success and civic engagement to compliance with laws and public health measures. While uncritical trust can be problematic, a baseline level of trust is necessary to foster cooperation and social cohesion. Previous research, rooted in the procedural justice approach, has firmly established that adults trust authorities who provide a voice to citizens or experts, maintain transparency, and act predictably. However, this research has largely overlooked the developmental perspective. It remains unclear whether the capacity to evaluate these procedural nuances emerges only in late adolescence or if these behaviors are equally relevant for building trust at the onset of adolescence.

Method

To address this gap, this study reports findings from a cross-national vignette experiment involving 2,383 adolescents aged 11–12, 14–15, and 18–19. The sample was drawn from four European countries representing distinct socio-political contexts: Germany (a high-trust, established democracy), Italy (moderate trust), and Czechia and Serbia (post-communist, moderate-to-low trust contexts). Participants were presented with experimental vignettes describing decision-making scenarios by both proximal authorities (school management) and distant authorities (the national government). These scenarios systematically manipulated three key procedural elements: giving voice to citizens or experts, providing transparency in rationale, and ensuring a predictable framework.

Results

The results indicated that procedural justice factors are significant predictors of trust for both school and governmental authorities. Specifically, giving voice to citizens or experts and maintaining transparency in rationale consistently fostered higher levels of trust across the sample. While providing a predictable framework also had a positive effect, its impact was comparatively smaller than that of voice and transparency. Contrary to the hypothesis that sensitivity to these factors develops primarily in late adolescence, the analysis revealed that even early adolescents (ages 11–12) often accounted for procedural fairness in their trust judgments. In the majority of cases, particularly in the Western democratic contexts, these effects did not vary significantly with age. However, a distinct pattern emerged in the post-communist countries of Czechia and Serbia. In these contexts, the positive influence of voice and transparency on trust became stronger with age, supporting the hypothesis of age-related moderation in specific socio-political environments.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that the cognitive capacity to evaluate authority behavior based on procedural norms is present from early adolescence. However, the age-related increases observed in post-communist countries highlight the role of the broader socio-political context. In environments characterized by lower institutional trust or different political socialization patterns, the application of procedural justice judgments may develop later, potentially due to delayed opportunities to engage with sociopolitical issues. The study underscores that adolescents are not merely passive subjects but active evaluators of authority legitimacy. Consequently, educators and policymakers can effectively nurture trust by adhering to principles of transparency and providing space for the voices of citizens and experts.