Content uploaded by Ivars Austers
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ivars Austers on Apr 21, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
DOI: 10.4018/IJSEUS.2020070101
Volume 11 • Issue 3 • July-September 2020
Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
1
Viktorija Gaina, University of Latvia, Latvia
Girts Dimdins, University of Latvia, Latvia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4129-1743
Ivars Austers, University of Latvia, Latvia
Inese Muzikante, University of Latvia, Latvia
Veronika Leja, University of Latvia, Latvia
The article examined the predictors of political trust and distrust in the context of a new democracy.
Latvia regained its independence from the Soviet Union 25 years ago, and its political culture differs
from traditional Western democracies by high voter volatility, low ideological constraint, and low
political trust. The study tested how perceived characteristics of politicians, political parties and
institutions, perception of socio-economic factors, and individual characteristics of respondents
predicted the reported political trust in political parties and specific politicians. The results show that
different considerations used when people think about trust in political parties vs. politicians. When
political parties evaluated, the perceived benevolence predicted trust in the political party. When
politicians evaluated, the strongest predictor was the perceived integrity. The findings illustrate the
complex nature of political trust, showing that the predictors of reported political trust can change
depending on the specific political context.
Perceived Characteristics, Political Trust, Politicians, Trust Predictors
The socio-political context of Latvia presents a unique opportunity for studying political trust. Latvia
is a new democracy, having regained its independence from the Soviet Union 25 years ago. It is a
parliamentary republic, and a member of European Union, OECD, and NATO, among many other
international organizations. At the same time, its political culture differs from traditional Western
democracies in several ways. Like many other post-communist countries, Latvia’s political culture
can be characterized as “ideologically unconstrained”, meaning that organized political ideologies
(such as liberalism vs. conservatism) do not predict people’s political attitudes and behaviors in a
systematic manner, at least not to the same extent as they do in developed democracies (Malka, Soto,
Volume 11 • Issue 3 • July-September 2020
2
Inzlicht & Lelkes, 2014). Latvia also has a high voter volatility—high proportion of voters switching
political parties between elections (Mainwaring & Torcal, 2006).
Most importantly for the current research, Latvia is among the European countries with the lowest
levels of both generalized trust (general level of interpersonal trust in society), and political trust (trust
in specific political actors and institutions) (Special Eurobarometer 461, 2017; World Values Survey,
2014). This situation allows to study political trust in the context of an emerging political culture
with a dynamic interplay of social, cultural, and economic factors related to trust and social capital.
These studies raise the question of how modern democracies can be made more sustainable in the
face of economic and political challenges, and what concrete measures can foster this sustainability
in terms of political discourse and communication, effectiveness of social and political institutions,
and civic education of society, especially young people, who are the future voters and political actors
in today’s democracies.
In this paper, the authors review the literature on the concept of political trust and predictors of
a political trust, present the results of an empirical study of political trust, and discuss the outcomes
and further research possibilities.
Political trust plays a central role in research and theory in political science and political psychology
(Braithwhite & Levi, 2003). One reason for this interest is that trust (both generalized trust, and political
trust) is related to social capital, which, in turn, is associated with a number of desirable political,
social, and economic outcomes, such as well-performing democratic institutions, happiness, economic
growth, political tolerance and democratic stability (Rothstein & Stolle, 2008). More recently, low
political trust—and political distrust—has been associated with the rise of populist political forces and
policies in Western democracies (Algan, Papaioannou, Guriev & Passari, 2017; Geurkink, Zaslove,
Sluiter & Jacobs, 2019; Van Asche, Dhont & Pettigrew, 2019). Political trust can be defined as “a
summary judgment that the [political] system is responsive and will do what is right even in the
absence of constant scrutiny” (Miller & Listhaug, 1990, p. 358). There are two aspects of political
trust: trust into the system with its institutions and procedures, which can be defined as macro-level,
or organizational trust, and trust into the specific people who are part of the system at the given point
in time, which can be defined as micro-level, or individual political trust (Blind, 2007; Citrin, 1974).
This study looks at the dynamic interplay of both aspects, focusing on the role of individual,
subjective perceptions in determining the experienced political trust. This paper reports the results
of the first study in a series of studies for developing and testing a psychological model of political
trust, which would offer a systematic framework for analyzing this phenomenon. The aim of the
present study is to clarify how perceived characteristics of political parties and politicians, perceived
socio-economic factors, and trustors’ personal characteristics predict trust in political parties and
politicians. The study examines trust among young people, who represent a generation that grew up
in a democratic system following the collapse of Communism, and whose votes, political engagement,
and decisions will determine the political development of the Latvian society for decades to come.
For this reason, the authors drew their sample from the student population from several universities
in Latvia.
Traditionally, trust has been studied as a correlate of social capital and the perceived efficiency
of public and political institutions, and, on the individual level, as a correlate of values and attitudes
about democracy and civic engagement (Catterberg & Moreno, 2006; Christensen & Lægreid, 2005;
Fitzgerald & Wolak, 2016; Levi & Stoker, 2000; Mishler & Rose, 2001; Rothstein & Stolle, 2008;
Uslaner, 2015). The basic social psychological processes such as social perception and attribution,
associated with trust, however, have been relatively neglected. It has been suggested that social
psychological factors provide more convincing explanations of political behavior than macro-level
factors or economically rational considerations by political actors in many contexts, e.g., political
Volume 11 • Issue 3 • July-September 2020
3
collaboration and negotiation (Leach & Sabatier, 2005), or support vs. opposition to governmental
policies (Calmfors, Dimdins, Sendén, Montgomery & Stavlöt, 2013).
Many studies have looked both at the macro-level and micro-level determinants of political
trust. One perspective relates political trust to the satisfaction with the performance of political
institutions, and the extent to which politicians and institutions are perceived to act in line with their
political agenda and the rational interests of the voters (Catterberg & Moreno, 2006; Christensen &
Lægreid, 2005; Mierina, 2014; Mishler & Rose, 2001). Other studies have looked at the importance
of a “culture of trust”, well-being, social capital, perception of level of corruption, and other factors
characterizing both relationships in society and moral evaluation of politicians and institutions
(Catterberg & Moreno, 2006; Levi & Stoker, 2000). Yet another approach looks at the connection
between trust as an individual-level variable and other individual difference variables and individual
socio-economic circumstances (Miklikowska, 2012; Schoon & Cheng, 2011).
From a methodological perspective, a lot of the existing research is based on simple, often
one-item, measurements of trust that overlook the complex nature of the concept of political trust
and the many aspects that may determine people’s judgment about the trustworthiness of individual
politicians, political groups, and political institutions (Citrin & Muste, 1999).
The current study aims at disentangling the various aspects of political trust and analyzing the
various antecedents and consequences of this phenomenon. Drawing on previous literature in social
and political psychology and political science, this study tests the interrelationships among several
psychological and societal variables. In the present study, the authors tested three groups of perceptual
factors: perceived characteristics of trustees (politicians and political parties), perception of socio-
economic factors, and trustor characteristics affecting these perceptions.
Previous research has suggested that three central characteristics of the trustee play a crucial role
in establishing and maintaining trust (Burke, Sims, Lazzara, & Salas, 2007; Frazier, Johnson, Gavin,
Gooty, & Snow, 2010; Schoorman, Mayer & Davis, 2007): the perceived ability of the trustee (the
group of skills, competencies, and characteristics that enable the trustee to have influence within a
specific domain), perceived benevolence (the extent to which a trustee is believed to want to do good
to the trustor, aside from any egocentric motives), and the perceived integrity (adherence to a set of
(moral) principles that the trustor finds acceptable). This model of trust has been widely applied in
organizational psychology and leadership research; in the present study, the researchers adapted it
to the context of political trust.
The perception of socio-economic factors includes individual-level self-report evaluations of
variables that are often associated with political trust in country-level analyses. Such factors include
the perceived efficiency of social and political institutions, level of corruption, and equality of
opportunity and outcome (Levi & Stoker, 2000; Rothstein & Uslaner, 2006).
Trustor characteristics include several individual-difference variables. One such variable is
generalized interpersonal trust (Miklikowska, 2012; Schiffman, Thelen, & Sherman, 2010). Other
variables include age, gender, education, socio-economic status (e.g., education), and life satisfaction
(Abdelzadeh, Zetterberg, & Ekman, 2015; Kaase, 1999; Mueller, 2009; Schoon & Cheng, 2011).
Because trust always involves some element of risk assessment on behalf of the trustor towards the
trustee, one may hypothesize that the individual tolerance of the perceived risk of putting a politician
or a political force into the power would be positively related to trust (Burke, Sims, Lazzara, & Salas,
2007; Colquitt, Scott & LePine, 2007). Of special interest among the individual-difference variables
is the relation between basic human values and trust. Previous research has shown that political trust
is related to post-materialist societal values (Catterberg & Moreno, 2006), but limited evidence exists
for the relation between basic individual values and the individually reported political trust (Devos,
Spini, & Schwartz, 2002; Schwartz & Sortheix, 2018).
The present study combined variables from these three groups of factors to examine their
contribution to trust in political parties and politicians in Latvia.
Based on literature review the authors hypothesized that:
Volume 11 • Issue 3 • July-September 2020
4
Regarding the perceived characteristics of politicians and parties, such variables as perceived
benevolence, competence, integrity, and benefits associated with parties and politicians would
positively predict the level of a political trust, and the perceived risk and costs associated with parties
and politicians would negatively predict the level of political trust.
Perception of socio-economic factors, such a low level of perceived corruption and positive
evaluation of the current economic situation would positively predict the respondents’ level of
political trust.
Regarding the trustor characteristics, such variables as general interpersonal trust, trust into
institutions, own life-satisfaction, and basic individual values that stress stability, protection, and
preservation of traditional practices would positively predict the level of a political trust.
The authors also posed the following question:
Do the predictors work differently, regarding the trust into politicians and political parties?
The participants (N = 171, age M = 24.86 years, SD = 8.28) were 53 male and 118 female students
from several universities in Latvia. Two research assistants recruited the participants during the lecture
hours, who provided information about the study and invited the participants to complete the study
questionnaires voluntarily. The participants were not in any way compensated for completing the
study. They could quit the study at any time and were informed about the treatment of their responses
before commencing their participation. The questionnaires did not ask for any information that could
allow personal identification of the respondents, and they were returned anonymously. The study
was run in accordance with the ethical requirements for conducting psychological research at the
University of Latvia.
The study used a between-group design, and two forms of paper-and-pencil questionnaires were
distributed—one for evaluating trusted political parties and specific politicians, and one for evaluating
distrusted political parties and specific politicians. Questionnaires were randomly mixed before
distribution, so each respondent had an equal chance of getting the trust or distrust form. A between-
group design was used to gather a full spectrum of trust ratings (both for high-trust and low-trust
parties and politicians), but at the same time to avoid a situation where the same participant might
be provoked to contrast their perception of trusted and distrusted parties/ politicians, thus resulting
in more polarized ratings. In the subsequent analysis, the data from both groups were merged and
analyzed as one sample.
In the questionnaire, the participants first answered a set of questions about a trusted (or distrusted)
political party, followed by the same set of questions about a trusted (or distrusted) politician. Then
the participants completed a set of questions about their perception of macro-level factors, followed
by several measures for individual difference variables.
The perceived characteristics of politicians/political parties included perceived benevolence;
perceived competence and perceived integrity, each assessed by three statements measured on a
7-point Likert scale. In addition, the perceived risk, loss, uncertainty, possibilities, enthusiasm, and
the costs and benefits associated with the party/ politician were assessed.
Perception of socio-economic factors included respondents’ evaluation of level of corruption in
Latvia, and evaluation of the current economic situation in Latvia.
The trustor characteristics included measurement of general level of interpersonal trust, level
of trust into governmental and municipal institutions, level of satisfaction with own life, and
basic individual values (power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism,
Volume 11 • Issue 3 • July-September 2020
5
benevolence, tradition, conformity and security), measured with the Ten Item Values Inventory (TIVI)
(Sandy, Gosling, Schwatrz & Koelkebeck, 2016).
Additionally, age and gender were measured as demographic variables.
The results show that the participants used different trust considerations when evaluating political
parties, and when evaluating specific politicians. A linear regression analysis was used to test the
predictors of participants’ trust into political parties and politicians. Separate analyses were run for
(a) trust in political party as the outcome variable, and (b) trust in politician as the outcome variable.
The results of the stepwise regression for trust in political party as the outcome variable indicated
that four predictors of trust explained 72.8% of the outcome variance (R2 = .73, p < .001).
It was found that the perceived benevolence of the political party was the most significant
predictor of the trust level (β = .51, p < .001). Table 1 shows that the other significant predictors
were the perceived integrity of the political party (β =.29, p < .001), the general level of
respondent’s interpersonal trust (β =.10, p < .05), and the level of enthusiasm associated with
the party (β =.12, p < .05).
The results of the stepwise regression for trust in politician as the outcome variable indicated
that five predictors explained 85.4% of the outcome variance (R2 = .85, p < .001).
Table 2 shows that the strongest predictor of trust in specific politicians was the perceived level
of politician’s integrity (β = .55, p < .001), followed by the perceived benevolence of the politician
(β = .26, p < .01).
The individual basic value of Self-direction appears as a negative predictor of trust into politicians
(β = -.11, p < .01).
Table 1. Predictors of trust into political parties
Predictor Standardized Regression
Coefficients (β)
Perceived benevolence .51***
Perceived integrity .29**
General level of interpersonal trust .10*
Party is associated with enthusiasm .12*
*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05
Table 2. Predictors of trust into specific politicians
Predictor Standardized Regression Coefficients (β)
Perceived integrity .55***
Perceived benevolence .26**
Politician is associated with possibilities .13**
Politician is associated with uncertainty -.08*
Self-direction -.11**
*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05
Volume 11 • Issue 3 • July-September 2020
6
Politicians’ perceived association with possibilities (β = .13, p < .01) and association with
uncertainty (β = -.08, p < .05) also predict trust in the politician. Trust is stronger, when a politician
is associated with new possibilities, and stability and certainty.
The results indicate that different considerations are used, when people think about trust in political
parties, and trust in specific politicians. Trust in political party appears to be a more general
phenomenon, predicted primarily by the benevolence (which is largely related to the overall likability
of the party), as well as the generalized trust (tendency to trust people). On the other hand, integrity,
which is a stronger predictor for trust in politicians, is a factor that is more adjusted to the specific
behaviors and public image of the politician. In other words, integrity is easier to associate with a
specific individual, while benevolence is a more general factor and can be more easily associated
with an institution such as a political party. It is also interesting that uncertainty, which is related to
risk perception, is negatively related to trust in politicians, but unrelated to trust in parties.
The results suggest that the participants showed more individual adjustment of their considerations
when thinking about trust in politicians than when thinking about trust in parties. Because parties (as
social groups) are more variable in their characteristics, they logically require a more general set of
descriptors in people’s perception, so our findings fit an image of a rational political decision-maker
in terms of formulating the trust judgment towards political actors. Given these findings, it would be
interesting to explore the same trustor-related and trustee-related predictors of trust as determinants
of trust in specific political institutions (other than political parties), or even the political system in
general, as one can expect a yet different set of predictors on this more general level of political trust.
The association between individual basic values and political trust was weaker than expected.
The authors found that only Self-direction was a significant negative predictor of trust in politicians.
Self-direction is associated with independent thought and action (Schwartz, 2012). These results are
in line with previous findings, where the level of trust in various institutions correlated positively
with values that stress stability, protection, and preservation of traditional practices, and negatively
with values that emphasize independent thought and action, and favor change. Self-direction, being
one of the openness to change values, was negatively associated with political trust in our data. This
could be explained with the fact that the preference for autonomy and independence, manifested in
the importance of Self-direction, is associated with higher skepticism and criticism, which results
in a negative relationship between Self-direction and trust in a politician. However, the lack of
relationship between the other values and political trust is in contrast with previous findings and
theoretical expectations. More research is required to understand whether this is a robust, replicable
result, or the expected relationships would be still found in other samples.
In general, the results offer a strong initial proof to the idea that not only satisfaction with the
performance of political institutions or socio-economic factors determine political trust, but the
perceived characteristics of specific politicians and political parties also play an important role,
along with trustor characteristics (such as generalized trust in people). This fits with the calls
for integration of attitudinal approach and institutional-structural approach in studies of political
trust and social capital (Rothstein & Stolle, 2008). Performance of political institutions and
socio-economic factors form a background against which individuals formulate their evaluations
of political actors (such as parties or politicians). These evaluations, in turn, lead to individual
behaviors, which can aggregate in systematic changes in the political culture, socio-economic
developments, and performance of institutions, which, taken together may contribute (positively
or negatively) to social capital in each society.
There are several limitations to the current study. One limitation is that the researchers used a non-
random (although a diverse) convenience sample of university students. Self-selection and education
may have played a role in participants’ responses. The results must be replicated in other samples,
Volume 11 • Issue 3 • July-September 2020
7
which are more representative of the Latvian society. Another limitation is the choice of measures
included in the study, especially regarding individual difference variables (trustor characteristics).
More detailed and extensive measures of risk perception, personality traits or personal experience
in relation to political institutions may have helped identifying other predictors of political trust, for
both parties and individual politicians. Likewise, more detailed measures of trustee characteristics
(e.g., rating of specific competences rather than general ability, or specific aspects of integrity, such as
consistency, moral motives, or values expressed by a politician) may result in a better understanding
of elements contributing to trust, and distrust.
To conclude, our findings offer a strong initial support to the tripartite model of political trust
outlined above, but also point to ways of expanding and fine-tuning the model, as well as for improving
the measures of the included constructs.
Further studies should explore in more detail the trustee and trustor characteristics and contextual
factors predicting trust in parties, politicians, and institutions, as well as specific political behaviors,
such as political engagement and voting. This is a direction of research that can significantly increase
our knowledge of how to strengthen contemporary democracies through public discourse, education,
political communication, and change in public administration practices and institutions.
This study was financially supported by a grant from the Latvian Science Council (grant No. lzp-
2018/1-0402).
Volume 11 • Issue 3 • July-September 2020
8
Abdelzadeh, A., Zetterberg, P., & Ekman, J. (2014). Procedural fairness and political trust among young people:
Evidence from a panel study on Swedish high school students. Acta Politica, 50(3), 253–278. doi:10.1057/
ap.2014.22
Algan, Y., Papaioannou, E., Guriev, S., & Passari, E. (2017). The European trust crisis and the rise of populism.
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2017(Fall), 309–400. doi:10.1353/eca.2017.0015
Blind, P. K. (2007), Building trust in government in the twenty-first century: Review of literature and emerging
issues. Paper presented in 7th Global Forum on Reinventing Government Building Trust in Government.
Academic Press. Retrieved from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan025062.pdf
Braithwhite, V., & Levi, M. (Eds.). (2003). Trust and governance. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and
integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 606–632. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.006
Calmfors, L., Dimdins, G., Sendén, M. G., Montgomery, H., & Stavlöt, U. (2013). Why do people dislike low-
wage trade competition with posted workers in the service sector? Journal of Socio-Economics, 47(0), 82–93.
doi:10.1016/j.socec.2013.09.001
Catterberg, G., & Moreno, A. (2006). The individual bases of political trust: Trends in new and established
democracies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(1), 31–48. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh081
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2005). Trust in government: The relative importance of service satisfaction,
political factors, and demography. Public Performance & Management Review, 28, 487–511. doi:10.2307/3381308
Citrin, J. (1974). Comment: The political relevance of trust in government. The American Political Science
Review, 68(3), 973–988. doi:10.2307/1959141
Citrin, J., & Muste, C. (1999). Trust in government. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.),
Measures of political attitudes (pp. 465–532). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic
test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
92(4), 909–927. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909 PMID:17638454
Devos, T., Spini, D., & Schwartz, S. H. (2002). Conflicts among human values and trust in institutions. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 41(4), 481–494. doi:10.1348/014466602321149849 PMID:12593749
Fitzgerald, J., & Wolak, J. (2016). The roots of trust in local government in Western Europe. International
Political Science Review, 37(1), 130–146. doi:10.1177/0192512114545119
Frazier, L. M., Johnson, P. D., Gavin, M., Gooty, J., & Bradley Snow, D. (2010). Organizational justice,
trustworthiness, and trust: A multifoci examination. Group & Organization Management, 35(1), 39–76.
doi:10.1177/1059601109354801
Geurkink, B., Zaslove, A., Sluiter, R., & Jacobs, K. (2019). Populist attitudes, political trust, and external
political efficacy: Old wine in new bottles? Political Studies, 1-21. doi:i1.o0r.g1/107.171/0770/30203231271
17918984422768
Kaase, M. (1999). Interpersonal trust, political trust and non‐institutionalised political participation in Western
Europe. West European Politics, 22(3), 1–21. doi:10.1080/01402389908425313
Leach, W. D., & Sabatier, P. A. (2005). To trust an adversary: Integrating rational and psychological models
of collaborative policymaking. The American Political Science Review, 99(4), 491–503. doi:10.1017/
S000305540505183X
Levi, M., & Stoker, L. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3(1),
475–507. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.475
Mainwaring, S., & Torcal, M. (2006). Party system institutionalization and party system theory after the third
wave of democratization. In R. S. Katz & W. Crotty (Eds.), Handbook of party politics (pp. 204–227). London:
SAGE Publications Ltd. doi:10.4135/9781848608047.n19
Volume 11 • Issue 3 • July-September 2020
9
Malka, A., Soto, C. J., Inzlicht, M., & Lelkes, Y. (2014). Do needs for security and certainty predict cultural
and economic conservatism? A cross-national analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(6),
1031–1051. doi:10.1037/a0036170 PMID:24841103
Mierina, I. (2014). The Vicious Circle. Disappointment with political authorities contribute to political passivity
in Latvia? European Societies, 16(4), 615–637. doi:10.1080/14616696.2012.749414
Miklikowska, M. (2012). Psychological underpinnings of democracy: Empathy, authoritarianism, self esteem,
interpersonal trust, normative identity style, and openness to experience as predictors of support for democratic
values. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(5), 603–608. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.032
Miller, A. H., & Listhaug, O. (1990). Political parties and confidence in government: A comparison of
Norway, Sweden and the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 20(3), 357–386. doi:10.1017/
S0007123400005883
Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (2001). What are the origins of political trust? Testing institutional and cultural theories
in Post-communist societies. Comparative Political Studies, 34(1), 30–62. doi:10.1177/0010414001034001002
Mueller, G. P. (2009). Trust and life satisfaction in Eastern and Western Europe. In V. Møller & D. Huschka
(Eds.), Quality of life and the Millennium challenge: Advances in quality-of- life studies, theory and research
(pp. 161–176). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8569-7_11
Rothstein, B., & Stolle, D. (2008). The state and social capital: An institutional theory of generalized trust.
Comparative Politics, 40(4), 441–459. doi:10.5129/001041508X12911362383354
Rothstein, B., & Uslaner, E. (2005). All for all: Equality, corruption, and social trust. World Politics, 58(1),
41–72. doi:10.1353/wp.2006.0022
Sandy, C. J., Gosling, S. D., Schwartz, S. H., & Koelkebeck, T. (2016). The Development and Validation of
Brief and Ultrabrief Measures of Values. Journal of Personality Assessment. doi:10.1080/00223891.2016.123
1115 PMID:27767342
Schiffman, L., Thelen, S., & Sherman, E. (2010). Interpersonal and political trust: Modeling levels of citizens’
trust. European Journal of Marketing, 44(3/4), 369–381. doi:10.1108/03090561011020471
Schoon, I., & Cheng, H. (2011). Determinants of political trust: A lifetime learning model. Developmental
Psychology, 47(3), 619–631. doi:10.1037/a0021817 PMID:21219062
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present,
and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344–354. doi:10.5465/amr.2007.24348410
Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology
and Culture, 2(1). doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1116
Schwartz, S. H., & Sortheix, F. M. (2018). Values and subjective well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay
(Eds.), Handbook of well-being. Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers.
Special Eurobarometer 461. (2017).
Uslaner, E. M. (2015). The roots of trust. In Y. Li (Ed.), Handbook of research methods and applications in
social capital (pp. 60–75). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. doi:10.4337/9780857935854.00008
Van Assche, J., Dhont, K., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2019). The social‐psychological bases of far‐right support in
Europe and the United States. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 385–401. doi:10.1002/
casp.2407
World Values Survey. (2014). Findings and insights. Retrieved from http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/
WVSContents.jsp
Volume 11 • Issue 3 • July-September 2020
10
Viktorija Gaina is a second-year PhD student and research assistant at the University of Latvia. From the beginning
of study in Psychology, her interest is connected to a Social psychology field and research interests are mostly
about social cognition, social perception, and communication between social groups as well as a Psychology of
stereotype, prejudice and discrimination. The aim of her doctoral research is to explore how individual values and
received information effects discrimination behavior. Viktorija assisted in different Ivars Austers researches since
she was a student in bachelor level. Currently Viktorija works as a research assistant at the University of Latvia
and she is involved in a large Political trust research project.
Girts Dimdins earned a PhD in psychology from Stockholm University, Sweden, in 2004, and spent the following
academic year as a post-doctoral research fellow at Stanford University, USA. Dimdins has worked as Faculty
Advisor at EMBA programme, SSE Riga, and is currently Professor of Social Psychology at University of Latvia.
He has taught courses in social psychology, political psychology, conflict resolution, and research methodology at
University of Latvia, SSE Riga, RGSL, and RICEBA. Dimdins has been involved in several research projects with
Stockholm University, Södertörn University, and University of Latvia. Girts Dimdins’ research interests include the
psychological bases of political orientation, economic and political attitudes, decision making, and behavior, moral
judgments, perceptions of justice, and perceptions of social (in)equality.
Ivars Austers started his career in social psychology by studying social groups. He was also interested in human
ability of perspective-taking, namely, under what conditions people are good enough in guessing what other people
have in their minds. By doing this research Ivars earned his doctoral degree from Stockholm University as well
as a job position at University of Latvia where he currently holds the position of Professor of Social Psychology.
His research interests are in social identity, perspective-taking, human decision-making, and traffic psychology. “A
nicely done experiment in social psychology carries an aesthetic beauty” - he uses to say.
Inese Muzikante, Dr. of Psych., received her degree in the field of Social Psychology at the University of Latvia.
As a Leading Researcher at the University of Latvia, during the last six years Inese Muzikante participated in nine
research projects. Her research interest includes driver behavior, individual values, and employee well-being.
Worked as an assistant professor at the University of Latvia teaching several courses: Organizational Psychology,
Introductory Psychology, and Leadership development course. Worked as Assistant Editor at the Baltic Journal of
Psychology for eight years. Currently works at the Riga Business School and teaching Introductory Psychology,
Research Methods, and Leadership Development course.
Veronika Leja has started her carrier as a lawyer and Legal Advisor to the Minister of Economics and Minister of
Transport as a Legal Advisor to the Speaker of Latvian Parliament. After graduating University of Latvia faculty of
Law and Faculty of Psychology, Veronika has combined both social silences in her recent researches. Currently
Veronika is a PhD Student at University of Latvia and working on her PhD- “False memories in eyewitness
testimonies.” She has taught courses in social psychology, communication psychology and law at University of
Latvia. Veronika has experience in law, psychology and political area and her main research interests include the
pretrial publicity, false memories, political attitude and decision making.
