The Familiarity–Action Gap: Trust, Youth Contact, and the Limits of U.S. Soft Power in Tajikistan

Authors


DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52536/3006-807X.2026-2.004

Keywords:

geopolitical influence, interpersonal contact theory, public diplomacy, public trust, soft power, Tajikistan, youth political attitudes

Abstract

This article examines how different mechanisms of U.S. soft power, particularly direct interpersonal contact and media exposure, shape Afghan and Tajik youths’ perceptions, trust, and intended engagement with the United States and international organizations. Using the first pilot survey collected from Afghan and Tajik youth residing in Tajikistan, the study quantitatively maps the relationships among youths’ perceptions, trust, and immediate and future actions. The findings indicate that trust is more strongly associated with intended future action than favorability alone, and that perception and trust are not significantly correlated. Direct interpersonal contact is more consistently linked to higher-commitment behavioral intentions than media exposure, which is more closely associated with familiarity and affective responses. These findings suggest the presence of a “Familiarity–Action Gap,” in which positive perceptions do not necessarily translate into active engagement. The objectives of this study are: (1) to examine how direct contact and media exposure relate to youth perceptions and trust, and (2) to test associations between perceptions, trust, and intended future actions. The study highlights the importance of trust-building mechanisms in contested soft power environments and suggests that interpersonal contact may play a critical role in translating favorable perceptions into supportive, proactive future actions.

Author Biography

  • Roselyn Bi, River Hill High School, Maryland, USA

    Roselyn Bi is an independent researcher whose work focuses on US public diplomacy, soft power, and youth political attitudes in Central Asia and Tajikistan. She has been invited to present her research at the Central Eurasian Studies Society's 2026 Regional Conference at Nazarbayev University in Astana, Kazakhstan. Her broader research interests include comparative politics, autocratic systems, and European populist movements. 

References

Abrams, J., McGaughey, K., & Haghighat, H. (2018). Attitudes toward Muslims: A test of the parasocial contact hypothesis and contact theory. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 47(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2018.1443968

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

Armstrong, B., & Neuendorf, K. (1992). TV entertainment, news, and racial perceptions of college students. Journal of Communication, 42(3), 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00804.x

Baizhumakyzy, Z., Tangkish, N., Mazhinbekov, S., Sarsenbekov, Z., & Korganova S. (2025). Fostering democratic engagement: Factors shaping youth political participation in Kazakhstan. Frontiers in Political Science, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2025.1561187

Barrech, M., & Khan, M. (2023). US-China growing competition in soft power. Journal of Social Sciences Review, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.54183/jssr.v3i2.288

Bawa, J., & Ashish. (2023). China's grand strategy for Tajikistan: Challenges and threats. Asian Journal of Political Science, 31(2), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185377.2023.2226880

Brannagan, P., & Giulianotti, R. (2018). The soft power–soft disempowerment nexus: The case of Qatar. International Affairs, 94(5), 1139–1157. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiy125

Cantor, P., Osher, D., Berg, J., Steyer, L., & Rose, T. (2018). Malleability, plasticity, and individuality: How children learn and develop in context. Applied Developmental Science, 23(4), 307–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2017.1398649

Gauttam, P., Singh, B., Singh, S., Bika, S.L., Tiwari, R.P. (2024). Education as a soft power resource: A systematic review. Heliyon, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23736

Godwin-Jones, R. (2019). Telecollaboration as an approach to developing intercultural communication competence. Language Learning & Technology, 23(3), 8–28. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/44691

Haneş, N., & Andrei, A. (2015). Culture as soft power in international relations. International conference KNOWLEDGE-BASED ORGANIZATION, 21(1), 32-37. https://doi.org/10.1515/kbo-2015-0005

Hudson, V. (2022). The impact of Russian soft power in Kazakhstan: Creating an enabling environment for cooperation between Nur-Sultan and Moscow. Journal of Political Power, 15(3), 469–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2022.2127280

Ikromi, J. (2025). Rethinking development finance in Tajikistan (WIDER Working Paper 37/2025). United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research. https://doi.org/10.35188/UNU-WIDER/2025/596-7

Knight, J. (2022). Analysing Knowledge Diplomacy and Differentiating It from Soft Power and Cultural, Science, Education and Public Diplomacies. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 18(4), 654-686. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191x-bja10145

Kurmangali, A., Matakbayeva, L., Baiturbayeva, A., & Islamova, A. (2025). "Soft Power" as Political Influence Instrument in International Relations in Central Asia: Challenges and Trends. Global Perspectives, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2025.142477

Levy, A., & Dovidio, J. (2021). Intergroup Behavior, in F.C. Worrell (ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of psychology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.291

Menard–Warwick, J., Heredia–Herrera, A., & Palmer, D. D. (2013). Local and global identities in an EFL internet chat exchange. The Modern Language Journal, 97(4), 965-980. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12048.x

Murshed, A., Tarawneh, A., & Al-Badawi, M. (2025). The Role of Language as Soft Power in International Relations: Analyzing Diplomatic Discourse and Public Communication Strategies. In M. Al-Sartawi, A.M.A., Nour, A.I., Abdeljawad, I. (eds) Business resilience and business innovation for sustainability. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, 587. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-87584-7_54

Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft Power. Foreign Policy, (80), 153–171. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1148580

O'Dowd, R. (2021). What do students learn in virtual exchange? A qualitative content analysis of learning outcomes across multiple exchanges. International Journal of Educational Research, 109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101804

Olberding, J.C., & Olberding, D.J. (2010). "Ripple effects" in youth peacebuilding and exchange programs: Measuring impacts beyond direct participants. International Studies Perspectives, 11(1), 75-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2009.00394.x

Pettigrew, T., & Tropp, L. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

Rashidov, T., Mullojonov, P., Rashidova, U., & Lemon, E. (2024). Academic Diplomacy: The Educational Aspects of Chinese and Russian Soft Power in Tajikistan. Nationalities Papers, 52(5), 969–983. https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2023.46

Repnikova, M. (2025, November 20). The New Soft-Power Imbalance: China’s Cautious Response to America’s Retreat. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/new-soft-power-imbalance

Risager, K. (2007). Language and culture pedagogy: From a National to a Transnational Paradigm. Multilingual Matters.

Rothman, S.B. (2011). Revising the soft power concept: what are the means and mechanisms of soft power? Journal of Political Power, 4(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2011.556346

Savolainen, I., Oksanen, A., Kaakinen, M., Sirola, A., Zych, I., & Paek, H.-J. (2021). The role of online group norms and social identity in youth problem gambling. Computers in Human Behavior, 122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106828

Schäfer, S., Kros, M., Hewstone, M., Schmid, K., Fell, B. F., Jaspers, E., Kauff, M., Lemmer, G., & Christ, O. (2025). Differential effects of positive versus negative contact: The importance of distinguishing valence from intensity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 28(1), 140-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241258070

Schemer, C., & Meltzer, C. (2020). The Impact of Negative Parasocial and Vicarious Contact with Refugees in the Media on Attitudes toward Refugees. Mass Communication and Society, 23(2), 230-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2019.1692037

Torebekova, Z., & Baktiyarova, G. (2025). Soft power diplomacy: A tool for the Advancement of the US Strategy in Central Asia. Journal of Central Asian Studies, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.52536/3006-807X.2025-2.003

World Bank. (2022, March 3). Advancing Early Childhood Development in Tajikistan. World Bank Group. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/tajikistan/publication/advancing-early-childhood-development

Wrighton, S., Hurst, O., Jung, M., Mullins, P., Nguyen, G., Philips, B., & Pintilie, A. (2022). Trust in international relations, public diplomacy and soft power. British Council. https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/trust_in_international_relations_ public_diplomacy_and_soft_power.pdf

Yun, S.-H., & Kim, J.-N. (2008). Soft power: From ethnic attraction to national attraction in sociological globalism. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(6), 565–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.09.001

Zhai, Y. (2025). Declining U.S. Soft Power in East Asia: Evaluations of the U.S. COVID-19 Response by Citizens of China, Japan, and South Korea. Political Science Quarterly, 140(4). https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqaf005

Ziegler, C. (2024). Filling the Void Left by Great-Power Retrenchment: Russia, Central Asia, and the U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan (Working Paper). Strauss Center for International Security and Law, University of Texas at Austin. https://doi.org/10.26153/tsw/56028

Zimmermann, P. (2024). Decolonization in Kyrgyzstan from an (Inter-)Generational perspective. Political Socialization of Youth in Bishkek. (Working Paper No. 2/2024). Department of Sociology, Osteuropa-Institut, Freie Universität Berlin. https://www.oei.fu-berlin.de/soziologie/arbeitspapiere/2024_2_AP_Zimmermann.pdf

Published

2026-06-29

How to Cite

Bi, R. (2026). The Familiarity–Action Gap: Trust, Youth Contact, and the Limits of U.S. Soft Power in Tajikistan. Journal of Central Asian Studies, 24(2), 57-71. https://doi.org/10.52536/3006-807X.2026-2.004