Trust in Generative Artificial Intelligence as a Mirror of Institutional Trust

The article examines the relationship between trust in generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) as a specific type of technology and trust in institutions, as well as methods capable of uncovering the deeper causes of these interconnections. The relevance of the topic is determined by the growing autonomy of technologies, which increases their integration into social relations and complicates the distribution of responsibility among actors involved in the creation, development, and operation of technology. The aim of the study is to demonstrate that the level of trust in GenAI technologies and the ways they are used can serve as an indicator of institutional trust and reflect a broader social context. Methodologically, the paper relies on a theoretical and analytical approach: it includes a review of classical and contemporary works in the fields of institutional trust, sociology of technology, and trust in artificial intelligence. Special attention is paid to comparing classical sociological concepts with modern empirical research and analyzing existing contradictions in empirical data. The paper describes the mutual influence between institutional and technological trust: in conditions of low institutional trust, technologies often substitute for institutions, serving as their functional analogues, whereas a high level of institutional trust, conversely, strengthens trust in technologies introduced by those institutions. The study identifies methodological challenges in defining trust in GenAI and characterizes their implications. The results show that trust in GenAI cannot be reduced to technical criteria of reliability and explainability due to the social nature of trust and its cultural and institutional foundations. The paper concludes by emphasizing the need for qualitative interpretative methods — narrative, phenomenological, and ethnographic analysis — to uncover the mechanisms of trust formation and redistribution between institutions and technologies. These approaches make it possible to reveal the sociocultural foundations of trust and outline perspectives for further interdisciplinary research.

1. Afroogh S., Akbari A., Malone E., Kargar M., Alambeigi H. (2024) Trust in AI: Progress, Challenges, And Future Directions. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. Vol. 11. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-04044-8

2. Alekseev A., Garbuk S. (2022) How Can You Trust Artificial Intelligence Systems? Objective, Subjective and Intersubjective Parameters of Trust. Iskusstvennyye obshchestva. Vol. 17. No. 2. DOI: 10.18254/S207751800020550-4

3. Angino S., Ferrara F.M., Secola S. (2022) The Cultural Origins of Institutional Trust: The Case of the European Central Bank. European Union Politics. Vol. 23. Is. 2. P. 212–235. DOI: 10.1177/14651165211048325

4. Bakhtigaraeva A.I., Bryzgalin V.A. (2018) The Impact of Social Capital and Institutional Trust on Attitudes Towards Innovation. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 6. Ekonomika. No. 4. P. 3–24.

5. Chatterji A., Cunningham T., Deming D.J., Hitzig Z., Ong C., Shan C.Y., Wadman K. (2025) How People Use ChatGPT. NBER Working Paper No. 34255. DOI: 10.3386/w34255

6. Choung H., David P., Ross A. (2023) Trust and Ethics in AI. AI & Society. Vol. 38. P. 733–745. DOI: 10.1007/s00146-022-01473-4

7. Coeckelbergh M. (2012) Can We Trust Robots? Ethics and Information Technology. Vol. 14. Is. 1. P. 53–60. DOI: 10.1007/s10676-011-9279-1

8. Dahlin E. (2025) Trust in AI. AI & Society. Vol. 40. P. 6089–6095. DOI: 10.1007/s00146-025-02429-0

9. Dang Q., Li G. (2025) Unveiling Trust in AI: The Interplay of Antecedents, Consequences, and Cultural Dynamics. AI & Society. DOI: 10.1007/s00146-025-02477-6

10. Garbuk S.V. (2024) Trust Model for Artificial Intelligence Application Systems. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 21. Upravlenie (gosudarsvo i obschestvo). Vol. 21. No. 4. P. 151–169. DOI: 10.55959/MSU2073-2643-21-2024-4-151-169

11. Geertz C. (1973) Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In: The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books. P. 3–30.

12. Giddens A. (2011) The Consequences of Modernity. Moscow: Praxis.

13. Huynh M.-T., Aichner T. (2025) In Generative Artificial Intelligence We Trust: Unpacking Determinants and Outcomes for Cognitive Trust. AI & Society. Vol. 40. P. 5849–5869. DOI: 10.1007/s00146-025-02378-8

14. Kaasa A., Andriani L. (2022) Determinants of Institutional Trust: The Role of Cultural Context. Journal of Institutional Economics. Vol. 18. Is. 1. P. 45–65.DOI: 10.1017/S1744137421000199

15. Lee J. D., See K. A. (2004) Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance. Human Factors. Vol. 46. Is. 1. P. 50–80. DOI: 10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392

16. Luhmann N. (1979) Trust and Power. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

17. Nikishina E.N., Pripuzova N.A. (2022). Institutional Trust as a Factor in Attitudes toward New Technologies. Zhurnal institutsional’nykh issledovaniy. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 22–35. DOI: 10.17835/2076-6297.2022.14.2.022-035

18. Petrunin Y.Y., Popova S.S., Han J. (2025) From the Pharmaceutical Industry to the AI Industry: The Regulation Transfer. Gosudarstvennoye upravleniye. Elektronnyy vestnik. No. 109. P. 45–51. DOI: 10.55959/MSU2070-1381-109-2025-45-51

19. Ryan M. (2020) In AI We Trust: Ethics, Artificial Intelligence, and Reliability. Science and Engineering Ethics. Vol. 26. P. 2749–2767. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-020-00228-y

20. Winner L. (1980) Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus. Vol. 109. Is. 1. P. 121–136.