Abstract and keywords
Abstract (English):
The article features the concept of trust as a phenomenon of parasocial relations. Parasocial relationship is one-sided because its object is sometimes unaware of its subject. The phenomenon of people's trust in social institutions still remains largely understudied. The research was based on the sociocognitive approach developed by R. Falcone and C. Castelfranchi and the theory of social representations by S. Moscovici and D. Jodelet. In Russia, population's trust in authorities has always been low, and the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting it even more. The study revealed two forms of institutional trust, one based on social relations and the other based on parasocial relations. The institutional trust in modern Russia combines social and parasocial forms. They are closely interconnected, and the first can transform into the second. The deficit of social relations between Russian population and authorities in the conditions of declining institutional trust may lead to their replacement by less stable parasocial relations.

social trust, institutional trust, parasocial interaction, social representations, social institutions, political institutions, COVID-19 pandemic
Publication text (PDF): Read Download

1. Giddens A. The Consequences of Modernity, tr. Olkhovikov G. K., Kibalchich D. A. Moscow: Praksis, 2011, 352. (In Russ.)

2. Giles D. C. Parasocial interaction: a review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psychology, 2002, 4(3): 279–305.

3. Horton D., Wohl R. R. Mass communication and para-social interaction: observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 1956, 19(3): 215–229.

4. Mishler W., Rose R. What are the origins of political trust? Testing institutional and cultural theories in post-Communist societies. Comparative Political Studies, 2001, 34(1): 30–62.

5. Perse E. M., Rubin R. B. Attribution in social and parasocial relationships. Communication Research, 1989, 16(1): 59–77.

6. Homans G. C. Social behavior: its elementary forms. N. Y.; Burlingame: Harcourt, Brace & World Inc., 1961, 404.

7. Blau P. M. Exchange and power in social life. N. Y.: John Wiley & Sons, 1964, 352.

8. Levi M., Stoker L. Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 2000, 3: 475–507.

9. Davydenko V. A., Romashkina G. F., Andrianova E. V., Lazutina D. V. Metaphor for trust: the "umbrella effect" in global science. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 2018, 11(6): 127–142. (In Russ.)

10. Antonenko I. V. Socio-psychological study of the phenomenon of trust in the field of business relations. Moscow: GUU, 2003, 51. (In Russ.)

11. Antonenko I. V. The socio-psychological concept of trust. Moscow: Flinta; Nauka, 2006, 479. (In Russ.)

12. Antonenko I. V. Social psychology of trust. Privolzhskii nauchnyi vestnik, 2014, (11-2): 99–104. (In Russ.)

13. Shorina I. N. Institutional trust in modern Russian society (regional aspect). Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki, 2013, (8): 271–274. (In Russ.)

14. Sasaki M., Davydenko V. A., Latov Yu. V., Romashkin G. S., Latova N. V. Problems and paradoxes of institutional trust as an element of so-cial capital in modern Russia analysis. Journal of Institutional Studies, 2009, 1(1): 20–35. (In Russ.)

15. Gorbacheva N. S. Research methodology of political leadership. Philosophy of law, 2015, (5): 18–22. (In Russ.)

16. Vakhtina M. A. Trust the state as an important factor of increasing its efficiency. Journal of Institutional Studies, 2011, 3(3): 57–65. (In Russ.)

17. Kobeleva Ch. A. Institutional trust in contemporary Russia through the prism political genotype. Vestnik Voronezh. gos. un-ta. Ser.: Istoriia. Politologiia. Sotsiologiia, 2016, (1): 51–53. (In Russ.)

18. Maximova S. G., Morkovkina A. G. Interpersonal and institutional trust as the social capital of civil society in various regions of the Russian Federation in terms of socio-economic development. Politika i obshchestvo, 2017, (4): 121–133. (In Russ.)

19. Trust in institutions: key factors and socio-political context. Russian society and challenges of the time, eds. Gorshkov M. K., Petukhov V. V. Moscow: Ves Mir, 2017, book 5, 168–187. (In Russ.)

20. Aghion P., Algan Y., Cahuc P., Shleifer A. Regulation and distrust. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2010, 125(3): 1015–1049.

21. Dalton R. J. The social transformation of trust in government. International Review of Sociology, 2005, 15(1): 133–154.

22. Drakos K., Kallandranis C., Karidis S. Determinants of trust in institutions: survey-based evidence from the European Union. Regent's Working Papers in Business & Management. London: Regent's University London, 2016. Working Paper 1607: RWPBM1607, 24.

23. Freitag M., Traunmüller R. Spheres of trust: an empirical analysis of the foundations of particularised and generalised trust. Europian Journal of Politikal Research, 2009, 48(6): 782–803.

24. Christensen T., Lægreid P. Trust in government: the relative importance of service satisfaction, political factors, and demography. Public Performance & Management Review, 2005, 28(4): 487–511.

25. Tanny T. F., Al-Hossienie C. A. Trust in government: factors affecting public trust and distrust. Jahangirnagar Journal of Administrative Studies, 2019, (12): 49–63.

26. Uslaner E. M. The moral roundation of trust. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2002, ch. 3, 52.

27. Makusheva M. O., Nestik T. A. Socio-psychological preconditions and effects of trust in social institutions in a pandemic. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, 2020, (6): 427–447. (In Russ.)

28. Jarzyna C. L. Parasocial interaction, the COVID-19 quarantine, and digital age media. Human Arenas, 2021, 4(3): 413–429.

29. Novikov A. S. Attitude to power as a parasocial attitude (the experience of qualitative sociological research in the Siberian regions). Siberian Socium, 2018, 2(2): 12–21. (In Russ.)

30. Novikov A. S. Emotional processes in parasocial relationships: the possibilities of sociological studies. Siberian Socium, 2019, 3(3): 65–73. (In Russ.)

31. Guzhavina T. A. Trust as a form of support for social institutions. Society and Security Insights, 2019, 2(4): 40–53. (In Russ.)

32. Calhoun C. Indirect relationships and imagined communities: large-scale social integration and the transformation of everyday life. Social Theory for a Changing Society, eds. Bourdieu P., Coleman J., 1st ed. Boulder: Westview Press, 1991, 95–130.

33. Hakim M. A. Measuring the feeling of distant intimacy with political figures across cultures: development, construct validity, factor replica-bility, and measurement invariance of parasocial relationship with political figures (PSR-P) scale. Harvard Dataverse, 2018.

34. Cohen J., Holbert R. L. Assessing the predictive value of parasocial relationship intensity in a political context. Communication Research, 2018, 48(4): 501–526.

35. Giddens A. The organization of society: an essay on the theory of structuration, 2nd ed. Moscow: Akad. proekt, 2005, 528. (In Russ.)

36. Falcone R., Castelfranchi C. Trust dynamics: how trust is influenced by direct experiences and by trust itself. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems: Proc. 3rd Intern. Joint Conf., New York, 19–23 Jul 2004. N. Y., 2004, vol. 2, 740–747.

37. Zlotkovskij V. I. The municipal elections in the Krasnoyarsk Territory in 2005–2020 as reflected in a socio-political analysis. Siberian Socium, 2021, 5(2): 78–91. (In Russ.)

38. Political science, ed. Meleshkina E. Yu. Moscow: INION RAN, 2019, iss. 1, 13–205, 244–252. (In Russ.)

39. Moscovici S. The history and actuality of social representations. The Psychology of the Social, ed. Flick U. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, 209–247.

40. Jodelet D. Social representations: the beautiful invention. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 2008, 38(4): 411–430.

Login or Create
* Forgot password?