Elite Russian Students’ Internet Strategies: Trust, Persuasion, and Rejection

  • Ellen MickiewiczEmail author
Part of the Societies and Political Orders in Transition book series (SOCPOT)


Trust, an essential component of political effectiveness within a country and the international system, always involves risk. Trust introduces benefits such as reducing transactional costs but also carries a risk of self-disclosure. Data from focus groups with 108 upper-level students at three elite Russian universities reveal risk aversion in interpersonal and Internet communication. To detect the prospect of “betrayal” by the other of the expected confidentiality of self-disclosure, they devise tests by which to identify sources to trust or reject. In the real world, as on the Internet, how do risk-averse young elites arrive at interpersonal trust—if they ever do—and how do they navigate the Internet through endless numbers of sites? What criteria do they apply? Do they distinguish between government-generated persuasive-communications sites and others?


Communication Persuasion The Internet Site Trust Disclosure Attitudes Risk Friends Facebook Twitter Focus group Survey University Student 


  1. Angrist, J. D., Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91(434), 30.Google Scholar
  2. Asmolov, G. (2015). Welcoming the dragon: The role of public opinion in Russian Internet regulation. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Global Communication Studies and Internet Policy Observatory.Google Scholar
  3. Bolte, A., & Goschke, T. (2005). On the speed of intuition: Intuitive judgments of semantic coherence under different response deadlines. Memory and Cognition, 33(7), 1248–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chang, L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2009). Comparing sample representativeness and response quality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(4), 641–678. Scholar
  5. Coppedge, M. (2012). Democratization and research methods (Strategy for social inquiry). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gamson, W. (1992). Talking politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  7. Greene, S. (2014). Moscow in movement: Power and opposition in Putin’s Russia. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Heberlein, T. A. (2012). Navigating environmental attitudes (p. 35). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Iyengar, S. (1994). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. S. (2010). News that matters. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kahneman, G., & Klein, G. (2011, June). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. The American Psychologist (2009), 64, cited in Cinla A. and Sadler-Smith, E. Intuition in Management Research: A Historical Review. International Journal of Management Review, 14(1).Google Scholar
  12. Keating, V. C., & Ruzicka, J. (2014). Trusting relationships in international politics: No need to hedge. Review of International Studies, 40(4), 753–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kononenko, M. (2011). Natsionalny Interes. Rossia 1 Television Channel, December 10, 6:05–6:50 p.m., Moscow Time.Google Scholar
  14. Kuklinski, J., & Quirk, P. (2000). Reconsidering the rational public: Cognition, heuristics, and mass opinion. In A. Lupia, M. McCubbins, & S. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason (163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kuran, T. (1995). Private truths, public lies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Nisbet, E. (2015). Benchmarking public demand: Russia’s appetite for Internet control. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Global Communication Studies, Annenberg School for Communication and Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VTsIOM).Google Scholar
  17. Ober, J. (2012, November). Democracy’s dignity. American Political Science Review, 106(4), 831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Osveshchenie ekonomicheskoi situatsii na tsentralnykh telekanalakh. Obektivny li tsentralnye telekanaly v osveshchenii ekonomicheskoi situatsii? [Coverage of the economic situation on the central television channels. Are the central television channels objective in their coverage of the economic situation?] (2015). Retrieved 2015, from
  19. Pew Research Institute. (2014). Social media and the spiral of silence. Retrieved 2015, from
  20. Putnam, R., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Raiffa, H. (1985). The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Raiffa, H., Richardson, J., & Metkalf, D. (2007). Negotiation analysis: The science and art of collaborative decision making. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Serek, J., & Machackova, H. (2014). Online only: Which Czech young adults prefer online civic participation? Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 8, 3. Retrieved September 2015, from
  24. Sutherlin, G. (2015). The myth of the universal user: Pursuing a cultural variable in ICT design for conflict management through quantitative analysis: Implications from a Ugandan case study. Ph.D. thesis, University of Bradford.Google Scholar
  25. Timberg, C., & Romm, T. (2018, December 17). New report on Russian disinformation, prepared for the senate, shows the operation’s scale and sweep. The Washington Post. Retrieved December 2018, from
  26. Zukin, C. (2015). What’s the matter with polling? The New York Times, 21 June, 1, 9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.James R. Shepley Emeritus Professor of Public Policy and Political ScienceDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations