YOUTH 2020 - The position of young people in Slovenia

General trends in young people’s values and attitudes  43 Figure 1.4: Relative changes in generalized trust of youth in the period 2010–2020. Thinking generally, would you say one should be cautious of people, or can we be trusting of the majority? (1-10) 10% 20% 3.5 30% 3.6 40% 3.7 50% 3.8 60% 3.9 70% 4.0 80% 4.1 90% 4.2 100% 4.3 2010 2020 13.3 24.6 62.1 16.0 29.6 54.5 People can be trusted (7-10) Middle-of-the-road (5-6) One should be cautious of people (1-4) 4.2 3.7 Mean (1-10) 0% Sources: Mladina 2010, Mladina 2020. Nevertheless, the decline in trust can be explained. A part of the expla- nation is likely provided by the vanishing of traditional wellsprings of trust such as religion. We found that higher levels of generalized trust correlate with more frequent participation in religious ceremonies and practices (r = 0.10; p < 0.01), but – as we shall demonstrate later – such participation is continuously declining among young Slovenians. This leads us to conclude that, until traditional sources of trust are replaced by modern ones, trust will likely stagnate. In other words, existential insecurity will have to be significantly reduced until trust can rise. Our data show that lower generalized trust is correlated with monetary worries (r = -0.12; p < 0.01) and housing issues (r = -0.06; p < 0.05). Moreover, the more young people are stressed, the less trusting they are (r = -0.01; p < 0.01). If Slovenia manages to increase economic security for its young, trust should recover and increase, which should then cre- ate a positive feedback loop vis-a-vis long-term social development.