Features of personality trust of Russian and Indonesian students in terms of network activity

Introduction. The process of modern youth’s cybersocialisation is caused by the digitalisation and the inclusion of information and communication technologies (ICT) in daily life. Network activity is a part of students’ socialisation. The interaction of student youth in the virtual space is conditioned by personality trust, which is revealed through the categories of trust in oneself, other users and the virtual world. The personality trust of students, as a belief in the reliability of other people and the world, regulates network activity and the life of society. Trends in the formation of personality trust in traditional and virtual space have similar prerequisites.

Aim. The aim of the study is to identify the features of personality trust of Russian and Indonesian students in terms of network activity.

Methodology and research methods. The study was conducted on the basis of the subject-personal approach. A set of methods was used: “Assessment of trust/distrust of a person in other people” (A. B. Kupreychenko) (the authors introduced an additional construct “virtual world”); “The study of trust/distrust of the individual in the world, other people, oneself”; “Questionnaire for the problematic use of social networks”; “Assessment of involvement in the use of ICT”.

Results and scientific novelty. For the first time, personality trust is considered in the context of network activity in the framework of a comparative study of Russian and Indonesian students. Indonesian students tend to display personality trust in communication by accepting participants in network activity, in choosing more authoritative sources of information and participants with a positive reputation. Students from Russia trust reliable and credible sources and network users, basing on empathy and a similar worldview. The personality trust of students in the virtual world and network users is more pronounced among Indonesians, and trust in oneself is equally important for both groups of students. The Russian student youth is characterised by a low level of trust in the information on the network, in comparison with the Indonesian youth. General trends in the problematic use of technology have been identified, such as cognitive absorption, emotion regulation, and Internet addictive behaviour. Both groups of students prefer online communication and strive for open and effective relationships in the virtual space with like-minded people, for mutual assistance and unity.

Practical significance. The results of studying the personality trust of Russian and Indonesian students in terms of network activity can be used to build open and productive relationships between young representatives of the countries, to organise psychological and pedagogical support for the socio-cultural adaptation of foreign students, to develop digital educational environment of an international university.

1. Antonenko I. V. Social psychology of trust. Privolzhskij nauchnyj vestnik = Volga Sci­entific Bulletin [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2022 Feb 20]; 11–2 (39): 99–104. Available from: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/sotsialnaya-psihologiya-doveriya (In Russ.)

2. Leonova I. Yu. Trust: Concept types and functions. Vestnik Udmurtskogo Universiteta. Serija Filosofija. Psihologija. Pedagogika = Bulletin of Udmurt University. Series Philosophy. Psy­chology. Pedagogy [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2022 Jul 01]; 25 (2): 34–41. Available from: https://cy­berleninka.ru/article/n/doverie-ponyatie-vidy-i-funktsii?ysclid=l5fh8pkr66906915742 (In Russ.)

3. Kupreychenko A. B. Trust and distrust – general and specific psychological character­istics. Vestnik RUDN. Seriya: Psihologiya i pedagogika = Bulletin of the RUDN. Series: Psychology and Pedagogy [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2022 Feb 22]; 2: 46–53. Available from: https://cyberlen­inka.ru/article/n/doverie-i-nedoverie-obschie-i-spetsificheskie-psihologicheskie-harakteristi­ki (In Russ.)

4. Il’in E. P. Psihologiya doveriya = Psychology of trust. Saint-Petersburg: Publishing House House Piter; 2013. 288 р. (In Russ.)

5. Skripkina T. P. Psihologiya doveriya = Psychology of trust. Moscow: Publication House Akademija; 2000. 264 р. (In Russ.)

6. Sztompka P. Trust: A sociological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University press; 1999. 214 p.

7. Fukuyama F. Trust. The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. N.Y.: Free Press; 1995. DOI: 10.2307/20047503

8. Beron R., Birn D., Dzhonson B. Social’naya psihologiya: klyuchevye idei = Social Psy­chology: Key ideas. Saint-Petersburg: Publication House Piter; 2003. 507 р. (In Russ.)

9. Aronson E., Golden B. The effect of relevant and irrelevant aspects of communicator credibility on opinion change. Journal of Personality. 1962; 30: 135–146.

10. Myers D. G. Social’naya psihologiya. Intensivnyj kurs = Social psychology. Intensive course. Saint-Petersburg: Publishing House Prajm-Evroznak; 2000. 510 р. (In Russ.)

11. Baron R., Kerr N., Miller N. Social’naya psihologiya gruppy: processy, resheniya, dejstviya = Social psychology of the group: processes, decisions, actions. Saint-Petersburg: Publishing House Piter; 2003. 269 p.

12. Chakravorti B., Chaturvedi R. S., Bhalla A. The 4 dimensions of digital trust. Har­vard Business Review [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2022 Feb 25]; 2. Available from: https://hbr.org/2018/02/the-4-dimensions-of-digital-trust-charted-across-42-countries

13. Sungurova N. L., Akimkina Y. E. Self-trust and academic motivation of students in virtual educational space. Social and Cultural Transformations in the Context of Modern Global­ism. 2021; 117: 1490–1495. DOI: 10.15405/epsbs.2021.11.196

14. Veselov Yu. V. Trust in a digital society. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universite­ta. Sociologija = Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Sociology. 2020; 13 (2): 129–143. DOI: 10.21638/spbu12.2020.202 (In Russ.)

15. Granovetter M. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embedded­ness. American Journal of Sociology [Internet]. 1985 [cited 2022 Feb 14]; 91 (3): 481–510. Avail­able from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328078447_Granovetter_1985_Eco­nomic_Action_and_Social_Structure_The_Problem_of_Embeddedness

16. Park A. J., Hwang E., Spicer V., Cheng C., Brantingham P. L., Sixsmith A. Testing elderly people’s fear of crime using a virtual environment. In: Proceedings of the 2011 European Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics (EISIC); 2011 Sept 12–14; Athens, Greece. Publication House IEEE; 2011. p. 63–69. DOI: 10.1109/EISIC.2011.68

17. CasalóL. V., Flavián C., Guinalíu M. Understanding the intention to follow the advice obtained in an online travel community. Computers in Human Behavior. 2011; 27 (2): 622–633. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.04.013

18. Zeng P., Zhao X., Xie X., Long J., Wang Y., Qi L., Lei L., Jiang Q., Wang P., Moral perfectionism and online prosocial behavior: The mediating role of moral identity and the mod­erating role of online interpersonal trust. Personality and Individual Differences. 2020; 162. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110017

19. Batson C. D., Lishner D. A., Stocks E. L. The empathy-altruism hypothesis. In: D. A. Schroeder, W. G. Graziano (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior. UK: Oxford University Press; 2015. p. 259–281. DOI: 10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780195399813.013.023

20. Ring C., Kavussanu M., Mazanov J. Self-other judgments of doping likelihood and anticipated guilt in hypothetical situations. Psychology of Sport and Exercise [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2022 Feb 22]; 41: 46–53. Available from: https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publica­tion/pub.1109888304

21. Ureña R., Kou G., Dong Y., Chiclana F., Herrera-Viedma E. A review on trust propa­gation and opinion dynamics in social networks and group decision making frameworks. Infor­mation Sciences. 2019; 478: 461–475. DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2018.11.037

22. Hendrikx F., Bubendorfer K., Chard R. Reputation systems: A survey and taxonomy. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2022 Mar 1]; 75: 184–197. Available from: https://homepages.ecs.vuw.ac.nz/~kris/publications/JPDC-2014.pdf

23. Yan S. R., Zheng X. L., Wang Y., Song W. W., Zhang W. Y. A graph-based comprehensive reputation model: Exploiting the social context of opinions to enhance trust in social commerce. Information Sciences. 2015; 318: 51–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2014.09.036

24. Gao S., Krogstie J., Siau K. Developing an instrument to measure the adoption of mobile services. Mobile Information Systems. 2011; 7 (1): 45–67. DOI: 10.3233/MIS-2011-0110

25. Alhogail A., Alshahrani M. Building consumer trust to improve Internet of Things (IoT) technology adoption. In: International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonom­ics; 2018 June 28. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2018. p. 325–334. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319- 94866-9_33

26. Goldhammer F., Gniewos, G., Zylka J. ICT engagement in learning environments. In: Kuger S., Klieme E., Jude N., Kaplan D. (Eds.). Assessing contexts of learning. Methodology of educational measurement and assessment. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2016. p. 331–351. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-45357-6_13

27. Rohatgi A., Scherer R., Hatlevik O. E. The role of ICT self-efficacy for students’ ICT use and their achievement in a computer and information literacy test. Computers & Education. 2016; 102: 103–116. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.08.001

28. Sirota N. A., Moskovchenko D. V., Yaltonskij V. M., Yaltonskaya A. V. Development of the Russian-language version of the questionnaire of problematic use of social networks. Konsul’tativnaya psihologiya i psihoterapiya = Consultative Psychology and Psychotherapy. 2018; 26 (3): 33–55. DOI: 10.17759/cpp.2018260303 (In Russ.)

29. Tatarko A. N., Maklasova E. V., Lepshokova Z. H., Galyapina V. N., Efremova M. V., Dubrov D. I., et al. Methodology for assessing involvement in the use of information and com­munication technologies. Social’naya psihologiya i obshchestvo = Social Psychology and Society. 2020; 11 (1): 159–179. DOI: 10.17759/sps.2020110110

30. Yashchenko E. F., Lashchenko D. A., Lazorak O. V., Yashchenko E. F., Lashchen­ko D. A., Lazorak O. V. Subjective comfort, coping-strategies, and types of accentuations of personality in Russian and Indonesian university students. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosu­darstvennogo universiteta = Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. 2019; 21 (2): 467–477. DOI: 10.21603/2078-8975-2019-21-2-467-477 (In Russ.)

31. Areepattamannil S., Khine M. S. Early adolescents’ use of information and commu­nication technologies (ICTs) for social communication in 20 countries: Examining the roles of ICT-related behavioral and motivational characteristics. Computers in Human Behavior. 2017; 73: 263–272. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.058

32.