Last months, I was going about my normal work day which usually means conducting surveys, interpreting data, standing as an expert witness at the court on religious extremism cases or reading books and by a complete chance I came across an Instagram post by Elizabeth Resnick that mentioned the University of Brighton Design Archives’  blog post on Dorrit Dekk.

Dorrit DEKK was a Czechoslovak-born artist who inspired the founding story of our institute.

The DEKK Institute consists of social scientists, specialists from various fields, students and humanitarians.

Its founding members met in 2015 while doing humanitarian work in Iraq and Syria, working in refugee camps, providing primary medical care and supporting former Yazidi sex-slaves who were rescued from ISIS, a terrorist group that tried to establish a protostate in the area and was ravaging the region at the time. That experience has taught us that peace and good relationships in society are not a given but come through effort, knowledge and accumulating shared good will.

After a few years when we returned home to Bratislava, we suddenly had a bad feeling. We noticed patterns of social disintegration such as erosion of communities, low interpersonal trust, growing tribalisation and ideological entrenchment, that we have seen in the Middle East, and believed it was somehow specific to the region. It was not – it can happen to any human society. In Central-Eastern Europe, we should have known better.

Slovakia together with Hungary, has its own ‘identity crisis club’ – we are the most polarised countries in Europe. Britain is not that Great when it comes to being United, but it has long way to go to reach our levels of polarisation.

As you can see, we are in a completely different field than Dorrit Dekk was, but we believe we share a strong connection in attitude, which is why we took her name in 2020 when our institute was founded.

Dorritt Dekk comes from Brno, an hour’s drive from the DEKK headquarters, and where I spent 5 years studying social cohesion and talking to paramilitaries (before it was cool). She was an ordinary person capable of extraordinary courage in a terrible situation, that (even if by proxy) contributed to breaking the Enigma cypher machine used to protect Nazi military communication. It was a massive challenge of her time and breaking it has saved countless lives, and shortened the Second World War by two years, according to some historians.

In Slovakia, but also in Europe in general, our contemporary ‘Enigma’ is the erosion of social cohesion. If we don’t ‘decipher’ how to stop the erosion of cohesion, countless lives will be lost. We were thus looking if we could find a Czechoslovak who contributed to breaking of the Enigma codes – and we found Dorrit Dekk in the list of women who worked for Bletchley Park.

Apparently, she was multilingual and fluent in German, so when she escaped from Nazi-occupied Bohemia together with her mother and reached London, she volunteered to fight the Third Reich. 

Assigned to the Women’s Royal Naval Service’s (WRNS) radio intelligence division, Dekk joined the Y-service, a network of intercept stations tasked with monitoring Axis military communications. Her role as a ‘listener’ required meticulous attention to detail: she transcribed encrypted German naval messages, often transmitted via Morse code in short bursts, which were then relayed to Bletchley Park for decryption. Her transcripts contributed to the decryption efforts that revealed U-boat patrol lines, enabling supply convoys that were desperately needed in Britain to reroute and evade attacks. This work placed her at the forefront of Allied efforts to counter the U-boat threat in the Atlantic.

Dekk’s contributions exemplify the often unsung role of women in the war effort. Of the 8,000 WRNS members assigned to cryptographic duties, many, like Dekk, were multilingual refugees whose skills proved indispensable. Her work remained classified until the 1970s, a common fate for Bletchley Park personnel bound by the Official Secrets Act.

Born as Dorothea Karoline Fuhrmann in 1917, Dorrit Dekk stood up to the challenges of her time and was able to keep her normal life and work, becoming a graphic designer. Some of her legendary posters aged remarkably well and were even dusted off during the COVID-19 pandemic. I am sure Brits are familiar with the “Coughs and Sneezes Spread Diseases” slogan that Dekk utilised on a series of posters commissioned by the Ministry of Health recommending people to “Trap the germs in your handkerchief”. The slogan even found its way into medical scientific papers.

We resonate with her story and personal resilience, and are happy to learn of ongoing research from her archive at the University of Brighton Design Archives. She was an extraordinary woman who made ripples not only across artistic and military worlds, but if we can humbly count ourselves into people she inspired, also scientific and humanitarian.

Do your duty when necessary and follow your passion whenever possible. She was a rare combination of courage and discipline on one side and creativity, inquisitiveness and originality on the other. Adversity shaped her into a unique, new person which is why, I think, she eventually picked a new name. It wasn’t just a whim or a marketing decision, it was a rite of passage, and she earned it. May her story inspire even more people to be better versions of themselves, and leave the world a bit better, safer and a more colourful place than they found it.

Thank you for your name, Dorrit. We will do our best to earn the privilege to wear it.

In Slovakia, around three out four citizens believe they have to be very cautious in relation to other people. Only one fourth believes they can generally trust others. A high level of distrust can affect societies in multiple ways, for example by increasing corruptive behaviour, creating excessive caution, complicating processes, polarising, or increasing the desire for a strong authoritative leader. 

Solving long-term presence of distrust is therefore crucial for a society to function properly. In Slovakia, 21% to almost 26% of citizens generally trust others since the 1990s, showing consistent low levels of trust.

To increase trust in a society is to essentially improve social cohesion, which can be done in multiple ways. A method discussed in literature as one of the possible solutions is active participation in a group or organisation, such as membership in certain groups outside of one’s work or family. 

When asked to rank certain factors from 1 to 10  according to their importance in Slovaks’ life satisfaction, social ties were ranked in top 3 by 38.41% of respondents (WVS wave 8). Social ties include community, relationships, loneliness, but also friends and family. As it is a wide category, it is hard to determine whether this percentage is driven by the importance of family and friends, rather than by belonging to a community. Nonetheless, we can say that social ties seem to be of a high importance to a significant part of Slovak society.

This blog works with the World Values Survey (WVS) data for Slovakia. The fieldwork was done by the FOCUS agency for the DEKK Institute, which officially represents the WVS in Slovakia.

Belonging to a group can have both positive and negative effects on trust and polarisation. It is crucial not to fall into two traps. First by having an ingroup favouritism, meaning “we are better than them” mentality, where we view everybody outside of our group as inferior. Second, by expressing outgroup homogeneity, meaning “they are all the same”, where we understand people based on the group they are in, rather than understanding them as individuals first. 

Participation in groups outside of family, work, and close friendships draws people out of their immediate social bubble and into contact with people they would rarely meet otherwise. By engaging with people from different parts of society, across generations, class, education levels, professions, political beliefs and worldviews, we can be exposed to different ways of life and perspectives. When someone enters an interaction with a stereotyped view of older people, that engagement itself can become corrective, demonstrating that no group is as uniform as preconceived notions imply. Rather, they are individual people with their own beliefs, likes and dislikes, just like any other person in a society. In theory, this should decrease polarisation. 

Based on Putnam (1995), it is important to distinguish between bridging and bonding groups, as one should help with social cohesion and depolarisation, whereas the other type can intensify the problem rather than alleviate it. Bonding refers to relations within a group or a community. (The terms come from Putnam’s classification of bonding and bridging social capital, with social capital being defined as „networks and the associated norms of reciprocity".)

Bridging refers to relations across groups and communities, e.g. across class, religious beliefs or socioeconomic background. Bonding groups operate within established communities or groups, so they do not generally help with social cohesion, as the members of that group do not step outside their bubble. Rather, it can reinforce existing divisions in society. Bridging groups, on the other hand, provide a platform, where people from different communities/groups can connect, which helps with social cohesion.

This is not to say that bonding groups are harmful to society. They are, in fact, crucial, as they can provide a sense of belonging, recognition and legitimacy. Additionally, belonging to a group does not result in anti-outgroup sentiment at its core. Anti-outgroup sentiment rather happens as a result of polarisation and low interpersonal trust. Typically, a group will not be strictly bonding or bridging. Most groups could be identified as both. 

For group membership to have a positive effect on social cohesion and trust in a society, active membership is important. That is, those that actively participate in events and meet with other people of the group. Passive or non-active membership can mean only paying a membership fee, being subscribed to a newsletter, and meeting the other group members rarely, if at all. Membership also has to be voluntary.

In Slovakia, almost half of the population (46,52%) are not members of any group (WVS wave 8). However, there is no optimal percentage of participation in groups which should make a society more trusting and less polarised. Rather, as discussed above, the importance lies in the quality of group participation, meaning active membership in bridging organisations. 

About a third of Slovaks are active members of at least one group (27,41%) and 8,53% overall are active members of more than one group (WVS wave 8) . Unfortunately, WVS data for Slovakia do not allow us to determine whether group membership is a factor in increasing trust, as the relevant categories contain counts too low to draw any reliable conclusions. Still, there are studies which have been able to show a link between group membership and increase of social cohesion. One study looked at specific groups in Flanders (Belgium), and found that hobby groups, art groups, humanitarian organisations, and sports organisations have more heterogeneous (diverse) people within the group. Meaning they would be identified as bridging. In the specific groups they studied, members have the opportunity to engage with people of different backgrounds to that of their own. They argue that there is a link between bridging group membership and civic attitudes. Putnam also highlights these types of groups as crucial.

Voluntary active group membership, particularly in hobby-based groups (arts, sports…) and humanitarian groups allow people to know each other first as people, before they know each other’s political beliefs. According to Slovak sociologist, Zuzana Fialová, it can help when people cooperate on a shared project or goal through such engagement. This allows them to build interpersonal trust first. Only after this trust is established, can we engage in discussions on divisive topics, while still seeing the other person as a person first, and not as their label.

Based on cross-country WVS wave 7 data, we can see an increase in trust levels in these groups as compared to overall interpersonal trust in society. These results, however, should be taken lightly, as they are based on 66 countries and we cannot determine group membership as having a causal link with increasing trust based on this data. Nonetheless, we can see a pattern. 

Based on the latest public World Values Survey data (WVS wave 7) global interpersonal trust was at 24% and caution was expressed by 75% of respondents. Active members of humanitarian organisations, sports and most importantly art groups, are showing higher share of interpersonal trust, as shown in the graph below.

The plot shows that across all three group types examined active members consistently report higher levels of trust than the general population average. Members of humanitarian and charitable organisations show a trust rate of 28.24%, those in sport or recreational organisations 29.44%, and members of art, music or educational organisations 29.94%, each representing a meaningful increase over the baseline. While caution remains the dominant response across all categories, the pattern suggests that active group membership is associated with a moderately but consistently higher propensity to trust.

Supporting active membership in bridging groups, particularly related to art, sport or humanitarian work, is identified by multiple authors as one way to increase trust in a society. We can find some evidence of that by looking at WVS data, although given the descriptive nature of the analysis we should be careful not to draw causal conclusions. Nonetheless, such groups seem to be able to provide the base for understanding the other people better, by establishing a relationship first. This mutual knowing is identified as a crucial point.

However, the bigger the group, the less likely and increasingly impossible it becomes to create a relationship with other members of the group. If we support active membership of groups, is there a point where too many members disable the bridging group from actually interacting? We could argue that Slovakia is theoretically just a very large bridging group, just as any other country. What unites people there? Why do people choose to be and stay a member of this group? Does active membership increase trust? 

Estonia is an example of a country that made social cohesion a deliberate strategic priority, particularly through inclusion, education, removing language barriers and defining what it means to be Estonian. In bridging groups of much larger scale, common stories and symbols may be the only thing that lets us identify the other person as a member of our group. 

Think of ice hockey in Slovakia: we are all a member of one big group (Slovakia), we are all together under one symbol (the Slovak flag), and we are all cheering for one team (the national ice hockey team). Despite not knowing the other fans personally, rooting for a national sports team brings members of a group closer. It connects people across demographic and socio-economic indicators.

Nevertheless, a couple of yearly international sports events cannot solve long-term issues with polarisation. Additionally, if the team you root for is not winning or not playing as you believe it should, this can create feelings of shame and anger. Besides rooting for a sports team, what unites us? In Finland, for example, everyone is familiar with ‘sisu’, which is a deeply ingrained cultural belief in resilience and the capacity to endure adversity. It is regarded as central to Finnish national identity, playing a meaningful role in national security. Although it is an old term, it was shaped as a key part of the national identity mainly during the country's struggle for independence from Russia in 1917 and later during the Winter War. 

Slovakia needs to ask a similar question. What ideas do we want to identify with? What do we feel when we see the Slovak flag?  What is our “sisu”?

One of the most revolutionary tools ever created by man is undoubtedly the internet, as it has turned our world into a single global village. It has enabled the rapid development of societies from the end of the 20th century to the present. The internet brought easier access to information and improved interpersonal communication worldwide. Over the last 20 to 30 years, social media and, most recently, artificial intelligence have joined it.

All of this has fundamentally changed our daily lives. While the internet made information accessible, it also allowed a free flow of disinformation and false information. This affects the stability of modern societies, the core of which is trust.

Trust is one of the main pillars of social cohesion. Low trust in society has a negative impact not only on our relationships but also on the quality of life and the wealth of the state, the perception of collective identity, the ability to respond to crises or economic growth or the growth of polarization and anti-system sentiment.

There are two types of trust: interpersonal (between people) and institutional (towards institutions). This blog focuses on interpersonal trust in Slovakia. In our country, the level of general interpersonal trust fluctuates around 23 percent every year.

According to our latest data (WVS wave 8), general trust among people in Slovakia in 2025 is at 25.6 percent. Although our trust has slightly increased year-on-year, this rate is still very low. Currently, approximately three-quarters of people believe that one must be cautious with others. Slovakia has had a low level of trust for a long time, regardless of who is in power or the economic situation.

At the DEKK Institute, we have been studying trust from multiple perspectives for years. Since the internet has completely changed the way we connect with others, it is important to understand whether its use can also affect our trust.

While the internet has "democratized" knowledge, it is also a source of uncontrollable disinformation and polarizing narratives. According to our data, a total of 83.7 o percent people in Slovakia use the internet. Almost 90 percent (89.48%) of them also use social media. A sharp increase in usage has been recorded worldwide, especially since the Covid-19 pandemic.

A 2004 study found that the internet users do not have greater or lesser general trust than people who do not use the internet. At the same time, internet at the beginning of the 21st century was significantly different from what it is today.

Another study published in 2008 in the US found that when people use the internet for social contact, spending more time online increases trust and reduces feelings of information overload. However, when people feel overwhelmed by information, spending more time online leads to a decrease in general trust.

Looking at more recent research, we can see that the focus is more on polarization than trust. However, these phenomena are interrelated. It is true that if we do not trust each other in society, we perceive disagreement as a threat rather than a legitimate difference of opinion. A study from the US reports that the online environment contributes to the emptying of the political center. It has been shown that groups of the population without strong opinions become polarized when following political topics online. Another study, which looked at the impact of traditional media and internet on attitudes towards the environment in Europe, found that the internet reinforces people's existing attitudes towards the environment. It appears that confirmation bias is linked to internet use. Using internet tends to reinforce our beliefs (whatever they may be) rather than challenge them.

And these studies agree that the internet can reinforce polarization in society.

According to a 2015 literature review, social media play an important role in creating social connections, for example, thanks to their interactivity, which traditional media (e.g., television) do not have. Among the articles, we find some that identified a positive effect of using social media on trust. Several articles found no effect. Interestingly, however, not a single article found a negative effect of social media on our trust. This is confirmed by a study on the impact of online social interactions in China, which showed positive results in the area of trust towards strangers. In the US, it was found that those who do not use internet and social media at all have increased their polarization, while it was found that more frequent use of the internet does not increase polarization.

Overall, the theory argues that social media have a positive impact on trust. However, this does not necessarily mean that trust is growing across different groups. Rather, it helps us build trust within our groups (e.g., people from the same neighborhood, culture, interest groups, etc.).

While some studies confirm increased trust between groups, others do not show this. Ultimately, social media are often used more to keep in touch with friends and family than to gather information. When social media (and internet) are known for successfully creating information bubbles or echo chambers, promoting biased content, helping to spread misinformation quickly, but also creating connections.

Our data (8th wave of WVS data) was collected through an in-person survey via the random walk method. The representative survey was conducted between October 2 and November 9, 2025, in Slovakia with 1,200 respondents. The results were weighted using standard socio-demographic weights.

To measure interpersonal trust, respondents were asked the question: "Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you need to be very careful in dealing with people?" They were offered a choice between two categories: a) "most people can be trusted" (trust), or b) "you need to be very careful" (caution).

To measure internet and social media use, we asked the question: "People learn about events in this country and around the world from various sources. For each of the following sources, indicate whether you use it to obtain information daily, weekly, monthly, less than once a month, or never."

Caution remains high across all categories of internet use. However, the share of those who trust other people is significantly higher (30.46%) in the group of weekly internet users than in other groups.

Using or not using the internet will not cure the society's lack of trust.

Nevertheless, we can observe its various impacts on how we trust other people. The internet is a place for making contacts, but also for misinformation. The data showed us that daily users and "non-users" have similar levels of trust and distrust.

• Daily internet users have the opportunity to encounter a wealth of information, knowledge, and ways of life, which helps in forming social contacts. At the same time, they encounter incorrect information or misinformation, or they "reinforce" their own beliefs, which essentially polarizes them. This reduces their trust in others.
• We can observe lower trust and higher vigilance with a high degree of probability in people who do not use the internet. They have fewer interactions with people who are different and unknown to them. On the other hand, they avoid encountering misinformation online.
• Weekly internet users achieve the best results.

This data therefore underscores that the internet can be a useful tool if used appropriately.

In Slovakia, we see the lowest trust and highest caution (77.01%) among people who use social media daily.

While previous research has concluded that social networks have a primarily positive effect on trust as a means of building social relationships, our data does not confirm this. The data showed that if someone already uses social networks, the more they use them, the more our trust declines.

One possible reason is that social networks and their algorithms create information bubbles and reinforce our existing beliefs. At the same time, the algorithm popularizes controversial narratives that may not necessarily be based on facts.

Nevertheless, the highest level of distrust is also found among people who do not use social networks at all. Although they protect themselves from negative influences on the one hand, on the other hand, we do not have access to the benefits that could support their trust.

The specific frequency of internet or social media use does not guarantee that people will develop a higher level of trust. As our data shows, there are no significant differences between user groups, and other factors may have a more significant impact on trust. Nevertheless, a clear pattern can be observed, showing that with moderate use, the level of vigilance is lower.

The impact of the internet and social media on interpersonal trust remains largely under-researched. Most articles focus more on institutional trust (e.g., trust in institutions, the president, the prime minister, healthcare, etc.) than interpersonal trust. It is clear that the internet and social networks have developed rapidly over the last few decades and reached a high number of users during the Covid-19 pandemic. The internet and social networks are essential tools that help spread information, knowledge, and connections around the world. However, their development has also brought other negative aspects.

As a result, moderate use of the internet and social networks in Slovakia has the best impact on general interpersonal trust. Nevertheless, weekly internet use instead of daily use will not solve the long-term low level of trust in the country. This requires a multidisciplinary approach. As already mentioned, long-term low levels of trust can destabilize society. It appears that despite the privileges of living in the internet age, it is important not to forget to live in the real world as well.