Abstract
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?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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.
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.
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.
Chang, L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2009). Comparing sample representativeness and response quality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(4), 641–678. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp075.
Coppedge, M. (2012). Democratization and research methods (Strategy for social inquiry). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gamson, W. (1992). Talking politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Greene, S. (2014). Moscow in movement: Power and opposition in Putin’s Russia. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Heberlein, T. A. (2012). Navigating environmental attitudes (p. 35). New York: Oxford University Press.
Iyengar, S. (1994). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. S. (2010). News that matters. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
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).
Keating, V. C., & Ruzicka, J. (2014). Trusting relationships in international politics: No need to hedge. Review of International Studies, 40(4), 753–770.
Kononenko, M. (2011). Natsionalny Interes. Rossia 1 Television Channel, December 10, 6:05–6:50 p.m., Moscow Time.
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.
Kuran, T. (1995). Private truths, public lies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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).
Ober, J. (2012, November). Democracy’s dignity. American Political Science Review, 106(4), 831.
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 http://fom.ru/SMI-i-internet/11939
Pew Research Institute. (2014). Social media and the spiral of silence. Retrieved 2015, from www.pewinternet.org/22014/08/26
Putnam, R., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Raiffa, H. (1985). The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Raiffa, H., Richardson, J., & Metkalf, D. (2007). Negotiation analysis: The science and art of collaborative decision making. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
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 www.cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2014092901&article=6
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.
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 https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/16/new-report-russian-disinformation-prepared-senate-shows-operations-scale-sweep/
Zukin, C. (2015). What’s the matter with polling? The New York Times, 21 June, 1, 9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mickiewicz, E. (2020). Elite Russian Students’ Internet Strategies: Trust, Persuasion, and Rejection. In: Davydov, S. (eds) Internet in Russia. Societies and Political Orders in Transition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33016-3_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33016-3_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33015-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33016-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)