{"title":"Social representations of covid-19 in the unstable information environment (a mid-2021 study)","authors":"M. Nazarov, V. N. Ivanov, E. Kublitskaya","doi":"10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-2-275-290","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The relevance of studying the social consequences of the covid-19 is determined by the fact that this transforming event affected the most diverse aspects of life in the Russian society. The article presents the results of the survey conducted on the sample of the Moscow residents in mid-2021. The majority of respondents considered the coronavirus as a dangerous disease that should be taken seriously. The phenomenon of coronavirus, due to its complexity, poor knowledge and mass distribution, has acquired not only a biomedical, but also a political, economic and media dimension. The information field about the origin, sources and measures to combat this disease experienced changes over time and was often contradictory. A typological analysis showed that there are several groups with different social ideas about the origin, control measures and social consequences of the covid-19. A significant group - about a half of respondents - shared ideas that were alternative to the official and dominant interpretation of the coronavirus in the information field. The study revealed that the agreement on the dangers of the coronavirus was combined with the priority of personal choice of means to combat it. The majority of respondents (61 %) were against the introduction of mandatory vaccination: among the most popular motives were doubts about its effectiveness and fears of its side effects; the priority of individual choice and the rights of citizens rather than the state. A statistically significant relationship was found between attitudes towards mandatory vaccination and trust in government: a low level of agreement with mandatory vaccination obviously correlates with a low level of trust in leading social-political institutions. The authors show that the Russian media discourse on the need for mass vaccination was accompanied by a wide spread of ideas that rigidly differentiate Russian citizens, which cannot but cause concerns about the tasks of ensuring social stability and unity of the Russian society.","PeriodicalId":42659,"journal":{"name":"RUDN Journal of Sociology-Vestnik Rossiiskogo Universiteta Druzhby Narodov Seriya Sotsiologiya","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RUDN Journal of Sociology-Vestnik Rossiiskogo Universiteta Druzhby Narodov Seriya Sotsiologiya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-2-275-290","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The relevance of studying the social consequences of the covid-19 is determined by the fact that this transforming event affected the most diverse aspects of life in the Russian society. The article presents the results of the survey conducted on the sample of the Moscow residents in mid-2021. The majority of respondents considered the coronavirus as a dangerous disease that should be taken seriously. The phenomenon of coronavirus, due to its complexity, poor knowledge and mass distribution, has acquired not only a biomedical, but also a political, economic and media dimension. The information field about the origin, sources and measures to combat this disease experienced changes over time and was often contradictory. A typological analysis showed that there are several groups with different social ideas about the origin, control measures and social consequences of the covid-19. A significant group - about a half of respondents - shared ideas that were alternative to the official and dominant interpretation of the coronavirus in the information field. The study revealed that the agreement on the dangers of the coronavirus was combined with the priority of personal choice of means to combat it. The majority of respondents (61 %) were against the introduction of mandatory vaccination: among the most popular motives were doubts about its effectiveness and fears of its side effects; the priority of individual choice and the rights of citizens rather than the state. A statistically significant relationship was found between attitudes towards mandatory vaccination and trust in government: a low level of agreement with mandatory vaccination obviously correlates with a low level of trust in leading social-political institutions. The authors show that the Russian media discourse on the need for mass vaccination was accompanied by a wide spread of ideas that rigidly differentiate Russian citizens, which cannot but cause concerns about the tasks of ensuring social stability and unity of the Russian society.
期刊介绍:
The mission of the Journal is a broad exchange of scientific information, and of the results of theoretical and empirical studies of the researchers from different fields of sociology: history of sociology, sociology of management, political sociology, economic sociology, sociology of culture, etc., philosophy, political science, demography – both in Russia and abroad. The articles of the Journal are grouped under ‘floating’ rubrics (chosen specially to structure the main themes of each issue), with the following rubrics as basic: Theory, Methodology and History of Sociological Research Contemporary Society: The Urgent Issues and Prospects for Development Surveys, Experiments, Case Studies Sociology of Organizations Sociology of Management Sociological Lectures. The titles of the rubrics are generally broadly formulated so that, despite the obvious theoretical focus of most articles (this is the principal distinguishing feature of the Series forming the image of the scientific journal), in each section we can publish articles differing substantially in their area of study and subject matter, conceptual focus, methodological tools of empirical research, the country of origin and disciplinary affiliation.