Cognitive Resistance to Government Influences in Russia (the Case of COVID-19 Vaccination)
Research Article
How to Cite
Babich N.S., Batykov I.V. 2022. Cognitive Resistance to Government Influences in Russia (the Case of COVID-19 Vaccination) — Sociologicheskaja nauka i social’naja praktika. Vol. 10. No. 2. P. 26-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/snsp.2022.10.2.9025
Abstract
The article considers the phenomenon of “cognitive resistance” as individuals’ blocking of certain behavior that is stimulated by means of communicative influence on them. This phenomenon can be observed in relation to influences that are perceived by addressees as manipulation. The article presents the results of an empirical study, the purpose of which was to test the hypothesis of the presence of such resistance. The method of a survey experiment of the “split ballot” type was used. During the public opinion poll one group was offered informational materials about vaccination against COVID-19, allegedly coming from government agencies, the other group – the same materials, but allegedly coming from a private person. Comparison of the results showed that the respondents of the first group experienced a significantly higher level of distrust of the source’s motives, more actively sought to find a refutation of the information they offered, and worsened their attitude to vaccination instead of improving it. Thus, the study confirms the existence of the phenomenon of cognitive resistance in Russian society on the example of the situation with vaccination against COVID-19, and shows that the reason for this cognitive resistance is probably the attribution of hostile motives to the state.
Keywords:
cognitive resistance, state, COVID-19, vaccination, persuasion, trust, competence
References
1. Vakhtina M.A. (2011). Doverie k gosudarstvu kak faktor povyshenija ego jeffektivnosti. [Trust in the state as a factor of increasing its effectiveness]. Zhurnal institucional’nyh issledovanij. № 3. Р. 57–65. (In Russ.).
2. Gimpelson V. E., Monusova G. A. (2012). Doverie politsii: mezhstranovoj analiz. [The trust of the police: an inter-country analysis]. Voprosy ekonomiki. № 11. Р. 24–47. (In Russ.).
3. Zhuravlev A. L., Sumarokova V. A. (2012). Regional’nye i polovye razlichija doverija predprinimatelej k raznym vidam organizatsij [Regional and gender differences of entrepreneurs ‘ trust in different types of organizations]. Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie. № 4. Р. 36–45. (In Russ.).
4. Kleiner G. B. (1999). Ekonomika Rossii i krizis vzaimnyh ozhidanij. [The economy of Russia and the crisis of mutual expectations]. Obshhestvennye nauki i sovremennost’. № 2. Р. 5–19. (In Russ.).
5. Kozyreva P. M. (2008). Pravovoe soznanie i doverie. [Legal consciousness and trust]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovanija. № 4. Р. 86–101. (In Russ.).
6. Kuchenkova A. V. (2017). Rossijskaja intelligentsija i instituty: doverie ili otchuzhdenie? [Russian intelligentsia and institutions: trust or alienation?]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovanija. № 10. Р. 113–121. DOI 10.7868/S0132162517100129. (In Russ.).
7. Milner B. Z. (1998). Faktor doverija pri provedenii jekonomicheskih reform. [The factor of trust in the implementation of economic reforms]. Voprosy ekonomiki. № 4. Р. 27–38. (In Russ.).
8. Petukhov R. V. (2017). Doverie rossijskogo obshhestva k organam mestnogo samoupravlenija kak problema. [Trust of the Russian society to local self-government bodies as a problem]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovanija. № 6. Р. 61–75. DOI 10.17976/jpps/2017.06.05. (In Russ.).
9. Ross L., Nisbett R. E. (1999). Chelovek i situatsija. [Man and the situation]. M.: Aspect Press publ. 429 p. (In Russ.).
10. Eagly A. H., Wood W., Chaiken S. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and social Psychology. № 4. Р. 424–435.
11. LaPiere R. T. (1934). Attitudes vs. actions. Social forces. № 2. Р. 230–237.
12. Smith R. E., Swinyard W. R. (1982). Information response models: An integrated approach. Journal of Marketing. № 1. Р. 81–93.
13. Wright P. L. (1974). Analyzing media effects on advertising responses. Public opinion quarterly. № 2. Р. 192–205.
14. Wright P. (1975). Factors affecting cognitive resistance to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research. № 1. Р. 1–9.
2. Gimpelson V. E., Monusova G. A. (2012). Doverie politsii: mezhstranovoj analiz. [The trust of the police: an inter-country analysis]. Voprosy ekonomiki. № 11. Р. 24–47. (In Russ.).
3. Zhuravlev A. L., Sumarokova V. A. (2012). Regional’nye i polovye razlichija doverija predprinimatelej k raznym vidam organizatsij [Regional and gender differences of entrepreneurs ‘ trust in different types of organizations]. Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie. № 4. Р. 36–45. (In Russ.).
4. Kleiner G. B. (1999). Ekonomika Rossii i krizis vzaimnyh ozhidanij. [The economy of Russia and the crisis of mutual expectations]. Obshhestvennye nauki i sovremennost’. № 2. Р. 5–19. (In Russ.).
5. Kozyreva P. M. (2008). Pravovoe soznanie i doverie. [Legal consciousness and trust]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovanija. № 4. Р. 86–101. (In Russ.).
6. Kuchenkova A. V. (2017). Rossijskaja intelligentsija i instituty: doverie ili otchuzhdenie? [Russian intelligentsia and institutions: trust or alienation?]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovanija. № 10. Р. 113–121. DOI 10.7868/S0132162517100129. (In Russ.).
7. Milner B. Z. (1998). Faktor doverija pri provedenii jekonomicheskih reform. [The factor of trust in the implementation of economic reforms]. Voprosy ekonomiki. № 4. Р. 27–38. (In Russ.).
8. Petukhov R. V. (2017). Doverie rossijskogo obshhestva k organam mestnogo samoupravlenija kak problema. [Trust of the Russian society to local self-government bodies as a problem]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovanija. № 6. Р. 61–75. DOI 10.17976/jpps/2017.06.05. (In Russ.).
9. Ross L., Nisbett R. E. (1999). Chelovek i situatsija. [Man and the situation]. M.: Aspect Press publ. 429 p. (In Russ.).
10. Eagly A. H., Wood W., Chaiken S. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and social Psychology. № 4. Р. 424–435.
11. LaPiere R. T. (1934). Attitudes vs. actions. Social forces. № 2. Р. 230–237.
12. Smith R. E., Swinyard W. R. (1982). Information response models: An integrated approach. Journal of Marketing. № 1. Р. 81–93.
13. Wright P. L. (1974). Analyzing media effects on advertising responses. Public opinion quarterly. № 2. Р. 192–205.
14. Wright P. (1975). Factors affecting cognitive resistance to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research. № 1. Р. 1–9.
Article
Received: 28.10.2021
Accepted: 20.06.2022
Citation Formats
Other cite formats:
Harvard
Babich, N. S. and Batykov, I. V. (2022) ’Cognitive Resistance to Government Influences in Russia (the Case of COVID-19 Vaccination)’, Sociologicheskaja nauka i social’naja praktika, 10(2), pp. 26-38. doi: https://doi.org/10.19181/snsp.2022.10.2.9025.
Section
RUSSIAN SOCIETY DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Publisher: Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (FCTAS RAS)