Sociologists explained what makes people trust or distrust the authorities. Thanks to a qualitative analysis of more than one and a half thousand responses to open-ended questions of a study on (dis)trust in Odessa, sociologists found that citizens use different bases to describe trust and distrust. Trust is based on emotions, symbols, and a sense of belonging. Distrust, on the contrary, is rational in nature: it is formed through the experience of disappointments, unfulfilled promises, and moral violations. People do not simply evaluate promises, but form images — “theirs” or “traitors.” But symbolic gestures of the authorities must be supported by actions; without real actions, they quickly lose their effect. This conclusion was reached by sociologists Olena Knyazeva and Olena Fostachuk in a large-scale study that included more than one and a half thousand open responses from citizens. Elitexpet spoke with Olena Knyazeva, head of the Sociological Information and Research Center "Pulse", candidate of sociological sciences, to find out why Ukrainians trust the authorities not through actions, but through symbols and emotions - and what really lies behind their trust or distrust.
You conducted an in-depth analytical study that helps to understand the attitude of Ukrainians towards the government. What exactly did you seek to find out?
My colleague, data researcher and sociologist Olena Fostachuk, and I wanted to understand what is happening at a deep level with trust in government in Ukraine. We were interested in what guides citizens when they trust or distrust it — not just how they answer rating questions, but how they reason, formulate what they feel. And most importantly — why trust and distrust function according to different logics.
What did the results show?
We have clearly seen that trust is about emotions, symbols, a sense of security. It lives in the language of support, belonging, hope. Mistrust is different: a cognitive structure, rational, built on accusations, facts, complaints. People clearly indicate what exactly was not done: “did not keep promises,” “suspected of corruption,” “became dependent on external decisions.” This logic is different from the one that generates trust. It is not just its flip side. What inspires trust in one person can inspire distrust in another. And this is a key asymmetry. Trust and distrust are two qualitatively different forms of assessment. Trust is often based on emotional support, insults that arouse respect or sympathy. Mistrust is more often built on specific disappointments, rational criticism, moral violations. For example, they trust someone because they “didn’t run away, they stayed in the country,” “didn’t betray,” but they don’t trust someone because they “didn’t keep their promises,” “don’t fight corruption.” These are different cognitive and emotional structures that are not reducible to each other.
You conducted a content analysis of over 1,500 open-ended responses. What surprised you the most?
The first is how many people show distrust not because of a lack of information, but on the contrary, because of an excess of experience in interacting with the authorities. The second is how many moral categories are present in the answers: “dishonest,” “traitor,” “doesn’t care about the people.” And the third is that people rarely mention specific political promises. They speak in images, symbols, and impressions.
What does this look like in terms of attitude towards the president?
Trust in President Zelenskyy is largely based on the military context. People see him as the embodiment of resilience, a symbol of defense, of national unity. They trust him as a figure who has not fled, who speaks on behalf of the country. This is a very symbolic, emotional trust.
But distrust is a different story: promises have not been fulfilled, reforms have been slowed down, accusations of external dependence or authoritarian style have appeared. This is a different register - cold, critical, with clearly stated claims.
And at the local level, for example, regarding the mayor?
There, trust is based on proximity. The mayor is "one of his kind," "does things," "helps people," often even personally. But at the same time, there is deep distrust: for corruption, criminal connections, development, double political games. People see both clearly. This is not a black-and-white portrait, but a complex image made up of layers.
What is the difference between trust in the president and in the mayor?
Trust in President Zelensky is more symbolic. Its basis is behavior during wartime, personification of national resistance, and not specific decisions. In the case of Mayor Trukhanov, trust is much more pragmatic: "builds roads", "helps people", "Odessa resident, ours". Distrust in the president is about disappointment, broken promises, a war that he did not stop. And distrust in the mayor is about corruption, pro-Russian connections, coastal development. People distinguish between symbolic and functional leadership.
You mentioned language features in your answers. Does that matter?
Very large. We noticed that emotionally charged answers are often mixed - Ukrainian-Russian. This is not an accident, but a tool — a kind of amplifier of expression. Language in this case serves as a marker of emotional tension, identity, sometimes even protest. This is a clue: political trust in Ukraine is not only about decisions, but also about language, belonging, a way of speaking.
What practical conclusions can be drawn from this for public authorities?
First, trust and distrust need to be formed and treated by various means. You can’t simply “add transparency” and expect trust to grow if the government has previously betrayed basic moral expectations. Second, symbolic gestures, as Zelensky’s example shows, work, but not for long. They need to be backed up by results. Third, the government must learn to listen not only to ratings, but also to the content of citizens’ speech. Open answers are the key to public sentiment.
What is the main conclusion?
Trust is not a “bonus” to effective governance, but a prerequisite for the legitimacy of power. Distrust is not always bad: it is a signal that something is not working. The main thing is not to confuse criticism with hostility. And the most important thing is not to consider the silence of citizens as consent. Because the most dangerous position is indifference. What Trust is not the absence of distrust., and vice versa. These are separate political and communicative strategies. Trust is fast, explosive, emotional, it appears in a moment of crisis. But it disappears easily. Mistrust is slow, accumulated, stable. It is difficult to dispel it simply with words.
And most importantly, none of them can be solved by rhetoric. ethical behavior, transparency and concrete resultsOtherwise, trust is not restored and legitimacy remains shaky.
Olena Ovchinnikova communicated
