JUSTICE AND TRUST IN THE CONTEXT OF PROTEST ACTIONS: A QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN BULGARIA

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26758/16.1.31

(1) Institute for Population and Human Studies at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Department of Psychology, Social and Consultative Psychology Unit, email: a.hristova@iphs.eu, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9996-427X

(2) Institute for Population and Human Studies at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Department of Psychology, Social and Consultative Psychology Unit, Institute for Population and Human Studies BASc, email: ivomaev@gmail.com, https://orcid.org/0009-0005-1967-1714

Address correspondence to:  Antoaneta HRISTOVA, Institute for Population and Human Studies BASc, Department of Psychology, Sofia 1113, Bulgaria, Bl.6 phone: +359887123999, email: tonyhrstv@gmail.com

Abstract

Objectives. This study is dedicated to a multifaceted exploration of justice perceptions within Bulgarian society, achieved through an examination of individual motivations for engaging in, or abstaining from, protest activity.

Material and methods. Qualitative data, derived from semi-structured interviews, enable the research to investigate how understandings of justice, experiences of injustice, and attitudes towards institutions influence participation in, or restraint from, civic protest.

Results. Findings reveal the intricate interconnections that respondents establish in their assessments of distributive (resources distribution), procedural (processual fairness), and retributive (punishment and accountability) justice. The study underscores the salient influence of personal experiences, socio-economic status, and institutional trust in shaping these assessments. Furthermore, the research identifies the diverse roles individuals assume/enact in situations of injustice, ranging from passive observers to active initiators of change.

Conclusions. This study contributes a nuanced understanding of protest activity from a social psychological perspective and delineates the significance that individuals ascribe to addressing the extant systemic inequalities and fostering an approach that prioritizes the enhancement of trust in national institutions.

Keywords: justice, value, protest, motivation, role, qualitative research

Suggested citation (APA):

Hristova, A., & Maev, I. (2026). Justice and trust in the context of protest actions: a qualitative research in Bulgaria. Anthropological Researches and Studies, 16, 486-496. https://doi.org/10.26758/16.1.31

Introduction

The pursuit of justice is conventionally understood as a significant marker of a well-ordered society, a hallmark of social cohesion and long-term political stability. Conversely, collective social perceptions are inherently subjective, insofar as they are shaped by individual experiences, cultural values, and specific socio-economic contexts (Lerner, 1981). When individual perceptions diverge significantly from perceived norms of social reality (in this case, concerning resource distribution, procedural forms for establishing justice, and accountability), they can generate a sense of injustice and motivate collective action in the form of protests (Reicher, 1996).

In the broader theoretical landscape, contemporary scholarship increasingly emphasizes the interdependence between justice perceptions and the socio-emotional texture of civic life. As Mikula and Wenzel (2000) argued, justice is not merely a cognitive construct but a lived experience embedded in social conflict and moral evaluation. This notion aligns with Reicher’s (1996) dynamic model of collective behavior, where perceived injustice becomes a mobilizing emotional force rather than a passive social observation. More recent discussions by Petkov (2023) highlight the cultural specificity of institutional trust in the Bulgarian context, identifying “trust deficits” as a recurring mechanism that erodes social solidarity and civic participation. Similarly, Tilkidjiev (2011) situates the Bulgarian case within broader European patterns, demonstrating that well-being and trust function as mutually reinforcing components of social capital rather than as isolated psychological traits.

The link between trust and justice perceptions has also been empirically explored in local studies (Kachakova, 2022), which reveal that moments of crisis often produce both a threat and an opportunity for civic renewal. Such findings underscore the dual nature of protest: it can signify social disintegration, but also the reactivation of moral agency among citizens. Pachkova (2016) further observes that protest participation is rarely impulsive; rather, it emerges from a moral negotiation between individual responsibility and collective purpose. This resonates with Hristova et al. (2024), who propose a new model of social-psychological analysis emphasizing “voice” as a central dimension of civic identity.

Within this conceptual framework, protest behavior in Bulgaria may be interpreted as a search for moral coherence — a rebalancing of justice and trust in a society where both have been historically strained. As Grisheva (2020) notes, the digital environment amplifies these tensions by offering both mobilizing resources and mechanisms of symbolic fatigue, often producing “online activism without offline commitment.” Understanding this ambivalence is vital for interpreting contemporary Bulgarian protest culture as a continuum between digital expression and embodied civic action. In this sense, justice becomes not only a matter of law or equity but a deeply human endeavor to reclaim dignity, reciprocity, and belonging within the public sphere.

The present study is dedicated to the assessment of justice perceptions within Bulgarian society and trust in the context of protest actions. It endeavors to understand the factors influencing individuals to engage in or abstain from protest activity. By examining the nuanced understandings of justice, the experiences of injustice, and the roles we estimate in various situations, and the attitudes towards institutions, the study seeks to define important conclusions regarding the social-psychological underpinnings of protest participation. Studies dedicated to trust in institutions in Bulgaria are frequent, given the periodic data on trust in political parties, political leaders, and institutions. The data systematically indicate low levels of trust, but the analysis is limited to establishing the data (Tilkidjiev, 2009). Other studies that relate to this topic are the study of the phenomenon of “protest” (Hristova et al., 2024; Pachkova, 2016), approaches to researching trust (Petkov, 2023), the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on trust levels (Kachakova, 2022). The relationship between the structural determinants of the perception of justice and protest actions has not been studied in the context of Bulgaria.

This research bases its conclusions on qualitative data collected through semi-structured interviews with respondents of varying social status, allowing for a more in-depth exploration of their individual motivations and perspectives on social and civic behavior.

The theoretical framework of the study is based on established theories of justice and collective action, employing them as a lens for analyzing the data collected from the Bulgarian respondents` terrain.

The overarching theoretical approach adopted here aligns with the definition of justice “as an evaluation/judgment” (Lerner, 1981). In this context, justice is defined as a complex outcome comprising individual evaluative and emotional components. According to this theory, justice arises from the conscious or unconscious recognition of a congruence between an individual’s predetermined role, as a social actor, and their perceived right and desire to participate in social situations marked by fairness. Consequently, the discrepancy between an individual’s expectations and beliefs, on the one hand, and the actual parameters of social and institutional interaction between individuals within groups, on the other, shapes the feeling of injustice. The greater this discrepancy, the more pronounced the perception of injustice. Research by Tyler (1990) further reinforces this notion, highlighting the conclusion that individuals are more likely to accept decisions, even unfavorable ones, if they perceive the process leading to those decisions as fair.

The study acknowledges the multidimensional specificity of justice as a social phenomenon, distinguishing its distributive, procedural, and retributive aspects (Mikula & Wenzel, 2000). The distributive aspect concerns the fairness of resource allocation. Procedural justice refers to the fairness of the decision-making process. Retributive justice, in turn, pertains to the perception of fairness in punishment and accountability for illicit actions, and the pursuit of retribution. In addition, Lind and Tyler (1988) also concluded that procedural justice perceptions can significantly impact organizational commitment and overall satisfaction, illustrating its broader relevance beyond purely legal contexts. Later, Cropanzano et al. (2001) also assessed that further support is provided for the effects of perceived fairness.

Civic protests are generally defined as collective actions driven by key motivations to achieve some form of justice. The theoretical framework proposed by Lerner (Lerner &Lerner, 1981) for exploring the tension between particularism and universalism is widely used to investigate the relationship between individual motives for justice and the broader efforts of groups to achieve social change. Particularism denotes loyalty to the in-group and the preferential treatment expected from/within it, while universalism emphasizes impartiality and adherence to universally applicable social standards (Lerner & Lerner, 1981).

Based on Mikula’s thesis (Mikula, 1993), the present study concludes that perceptions of injustice are a result that is formed by a combination of factors: the feeling of violated rights, the attribution of blame and responsibility to specific social agents, and the widespread lack of grounds for acknowledging violations of the social order (through institutions ostensibly responsible for ensuring justice). It is precisely the presence or absence of consensus regarding the fairness of each individual social situation that predetermines the possibility of an already perceived injustice escalating into civic protest or conflict.

Material and methods

The fieldwork for the present study was conducted between March and July 2024 across the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria. The interviews were carried out in Sofia, Plovdiv, Varna, Burgas, Vidin, Stara Zagora, Veliko Tarnovo, as well as in several smaller settlements, in order to ensure territorial and social diversity within the sample.

Respondents were selected through a combined sampling strategy, incorporating both purposive and snowball sampling techniques, aimed at including participants who had either direct experience with protest activity or had consciously chosen not to participate in such actions. The primary inclusion criterion was a personal experience of civic protest—either participation or refusal—within the past ten years. Additional criteria included age (over 18 years), permanent residence in Bulgaria, and the provision of written informed consent for participation.

A total of 42 individuals were interviewed, of whom 21 had actively participated in protests, while 21 declared that they had not participated and did not intend to do so. The sample consisted of 22 women and 20 men, aged between 22 and 65 years, representing diverse educational backgrounds (secondary, higher, and postgraduate qualifications) and professional fields such as public administration, education, the private sector, freelance occupations, students, and unemployed individuals. Approximately one third of the respondents resided in the capital city of Sofia, one third in large and medium-sized cities, and the remainder in smaller settlements across the country.

All interviews were conducted in person, with an average duration ranging from 45 to 70 minutes. Each interview was audio-recorded with prior consent from the participants, subsequently transcribed verbatim, and subjected only to minor technical editing to correct the linguistic imperfections typical of spoken discourse. For analytical purposes, all data were anonymized, and any information that could lead to the identification of specific individuals was removed. The demographic framework of the study was fully adhered to.

To ensure the reliability and validity of the findings, the study employed several complementary strategies for verifying the quality of the analysis. First, two independent researchers from the team conducted separate coding and thematic analysis of the interview transcripts, after which they compared and discussed their interpretations until inter-coder agreement was achieved. Second, a peer debriefing procedure was undertaken within the research team to mitigate potential researcher bias and to confirm the consistency between empirical data and analytical interpretation.

In addition, participant validation (member checking) was conducted with a subset of interviewees, who confirmed that the conclusions accurately reflected their opinions and lived experiences.

Results

Trust and Socio-Economic Status of Respondents

The analysis of interviews data revealed a complex and multifaceted picture of justice perceptions among respondents and their motivations for participating in protests. The key findings are presented below, structured around the principal themes identified through data analysis.

The analyzed interviews indicate that, in Bulgaria, the relationship between socio-economic status and trust in institutions is foundational and not solely determined by respondents’ protest experience. Among the majority of interviewees (33 individuals), a recurring theme is the palpable distrust of formal authorities (primarily the judicial system and governmental structures). For the most part, these respondents self-describe as economically disadvantaged, regardless of their individual socio-economic standing.

Within the radical opinions expressed (7 individuals), those conveying the conviction that institutions are utilized to benefit the wealthy and powerful stand out, reflecting a broader societal perception of corruption and the unequal application of the law (27 individuals). This distrust is fueled by personal experiences of inherent injustice, prompting individuals to seek alternative channels for resolving their personal and individual issues related to achieving justice. In most cases, this occurs through the use of personal contacts rather than official procedures. Overall, the dominant attitude is that, without available economic resources, individuals lack the power to overcome bureaucratic obstacles or influence the decisions of institutions: “Look now, I’ve been protesting for years. I’ve participated in everything from environmental protests to protests for higher wages. And what happens? Nothing… We scream, we shout, and they do whatever they want. I’m an ordinary craftsman, I have loans, children, a homestead. I can’t afford to lose my job to stand in front of the parliament every day. That’s exactly what they’re counting on! They know that if you have children to feed and bills to pay, you won’t risk everything. And as long as that’s the case, bureaucracy will continue, corruption will flourish, and we will be ignored. We need economic opportunities so we can truly fight, without fear of ending up on the street.” (Male respondent, large city).

In fact, a higher socio-economic status, declared by some respondents (11 individuals), does not automatically translate to unwavering trust in institutions. Some of the explanations provided by interviewees suggest a relative satisfaction with the existing system among a small portion of respondents (8 individuals) who perceive themselves as economically independent. However, even this group expresses concern regarding procedural fairness and the potential for manipulation, indicating a widespread anxiety about the integrity of institutions at all levels within the state structures. The general consensus among respondents is that the institutions tasked with dealing with justice do not fairly apply the legal procedures for its attainment: “I tried to report a corruption case in the municipality, but even before I got to the investigation, I was warned that nothing would happen. I have the feeling that justice is blind only to ordinary people, and turns a blind eye to the powerful. I hope to see true justice one day, but for now, I am disappointed.” (Female respondent, medium-sized city).

Furthermore, the prevailing sense of powerlessness and apathy among some respondents highlights the critical lack of connection between citizens and the institutions intended to serve them. This disengagement, stemming from perceived systemic injustice, further undermines trust and reinforces the cycle of disillusionment, suggesting systemic problems in the process. The end of what can be done is what causes the end of trust: “I’m tired of dealing with any kind of institution. Every time I hit a wall, bureaucracy up to my neck, and it looks like there’s no solution. I just don’t have the strength to fight the “windmills” anymore and waste my nerves, because it’s like no one cares about me and my problems.” (Female, large city).

Overall, the interviews reveal a deep crisis of trust in Bulgarian institutions, exacerbated by socio-economic disparities and a sense of lack of accountability to citizens. Clearly, addressing this challenge requires systemic reforms ensuring fairness, transparency, and equal access to justice, fostering a sense of civic engagement and restoring faith in the rule of law for all citizens.

The Understanding of Justice

Respondents express clear anxiety when articulating their understanding of distributive injustice (23 individuals). Most frequently, respondents voiced concerns about the unfair distribution of resources and unequal opportunities in contemporary Bulgarian society. These anxieties are linked to issues of income inequality, access to the labor market and healthcare, and clearly delineated regional disparities. Many respondents state that their individual efforts (especially in the workplace) are not adequately rewarded. A smaller portion (approximately one-third of respondents) highlight the presence of systemic barriers preventing certain groups from achieving a higher level of economic and social mobility, thereby limiting their potential for increased well-being.

Quote: “I work approximately the same as others. Some pay certain salaries, others pay other salaries” (Male respondent, medium-sized city).

The respondents (31 individuals) clearly express their anxieties regarding the state of procedural justice in Bulgaria. They are primarily concerned about the “fairness” and “transparency” of the decision-making process in Bulgarian institutions, most often citing the executive branch (the government), the judicial system as a whole, and, in particular, law enforcement procedures as examples. Each respondent is able to instinctively point to concrete cases of corruption, bias, and selective application of the law. This generates a widespread feeling of distrust in the system’s ability to achieve fair outcomes from the exercise of power by individual institutions. Quote: “There are laws, but they are not applied. Or they are applied selectively” (Female, small city).

The study also identifies concerns among respondents related to retributive justice. A wide range of answers/views (29 individuals) is observed among the interviewees, linked to the dichotomy of “punishment – justice” and accountability for institutional misconduct. Some respondents declare a strong desire for retribution, advocating for stricter penalties for law-breakers or those exhibiting social behavior that contradicts the moral norms of society. Other respondents outline the significance of rehabilitative (restorative) justice, seeking to address the root causes of criminal behavior and promoting “reconciliation” between all disadvantaged members of society. Quote: “For me, it is important to have justice and I am very interested in the law” (Female respondent, large city).

For some respondents (not a dominant portion), systemic inequalities and forms of injustice are an important aspect of social imbalance. Quote: “I have encountered many injustices, mostly of a social nature, towards elderly people, towards sick people, towards people in disadvantaged positions. And on this factor, I think our country is very far behind.” (Female respondent, small city).

In rare instances, respondents seek to place the blame for distributive injustice within themselves, rather than sharing it as an expectation from society: “My socio-economic position depends entirely and only on me and on no one else.” (Male respondent, medium-sized city).

The study finds a broad spectrum of experiences of injustice. A large portion of the expressed opinions is related to economic hardship. Many respondents (especially those from small cities) describe personally experienced economic hardship, including unemployment, low wages, and limited opportunities for personal career advancement, as key circumstances shaping their perception of injustice. They believe that these economic challenges are not only the result of individual circumstances, but are also shaped by systemic factors such as corruption and lack of government support: “I live in a small town and everyone has a lot of problems, mostly financial” (Female respondent, small city).

Some participants report experiences related to the personal feeling of discrimination and marginalization based on factors such as ethnicity, gender, age, or disability. They believe that such experiences of injustice are indicative of dominant patterns of inequality in Bulgarian society.

Individual respondents describe instances of abuse of power by state officials, law enforcement officers, and employers. These experiences provoke feelings of anger, disappointment, and helplessness. Quote: “I happened to see something, this is a specific case, with law enforcement officers, they had exceeded their authority” (Male respondent, medium-sized city).

Many respondents are discouraged by institutional (in particular, governmental) inefficiency: “Many of these petitions and signatures get lost somewhere in the offices of the institutions to which they are addressed.” (Female respondent, small city).

Figure 1

Understanding the Social Injustice Cases (to see Figure 1, please click here)

Motivations for Protest Participation

Respondents who participated in protest actions (21 individuals) often declare concerns regarding the unfair distribution of resources and opportunities as their primary motivation for protest activity. They seek to challenge the status quo/system and advocate for policies that would promote greater economic and social equality (14 individuals).

Quote: “I protest because I’m tired of seeing a handful of people benefit at the expense of everyone else.” (Male respondent, big city)

The motivation is stemming from expectations of procedural justice and often proves to be a main factor in participating in protest actions, primarily due to concerns about the lack of fairness and transparency in the decision-making process (17 individuals). These respondents openly demand that institutions should be accountable and should advocate for reforms that would promote greater transparency and public participation: “I want people to monitor the court constantly, and the court itself to have rules that guarantee compliance with procedures.” (Female respondent, big city)

Emotions play an important role in the motivation of participants to engage in protest activities. Feelings of anger, frustration and a sense of injustice most often prompt people to take collective actions. This is particularly evident among respondents with protest experience – more than 2/3, or 15 individuals, associate emotions with the motivation for protest participation. Among respondents who did not participate in protests, this proportion is visibly smaller – just over 1/3, or 8 individuals.

Respondents with protest experience acknowledge that they have often been influenced by their membership in social networks, as well as by the positions of their friends, family members, and colleagues, who play a key role in shaping their perceptions of injustice and motivating them to protest. Among respondents who did not participate in protests, social networks are definitively an indicator of alternative information and a warning about possible manipulation of civic activity – 12 respondents state that they carefully monitor information in social networks, and it is precisely this that has demotivated them from participating in protests. The principal experiential and institutional dimensions through which respondents framed injustice are synthesized in Figure 2. The figure brings together four analytically recurrent dimensions—social discrimination, personal humiliation, corruption in the judicial system, and systemic mistrust—which clarify the empirical background against which respondents subsequently position themselves as victims, observers, or initiators of change.

Figure 2

Map of Injustice (to see Figure 2, please click here)

Social roles in Injustice situations

Respondents with protest experience most often assume three roles when participating in situations of injustice:

• As a “victim” – contextually self-described as victimized by diverse forms of injustice, personally experiencing discrimination, economic hardship, or abuse of power – 11 individuals.
• As an “observer” – contextually self-described as witnessing situations of injustice without personally experiencing it – 7 individuals.
• As an “Initiator of change” – contextually describing themselves in an active position to organize and even lead protest activities to challenge existing forms of injustice – 3 individuals.

Among respondents without protest experience, two main attitudes dominate:

• Apathy and disillusionment, which are deeply rooted and involve unwavering doubts about the meaning and the effectiveness of institutions and the mechanisms of democracy in general. This is the dominant opinion among non-protesting respondents (12 individuals).
• To a lesser extent (registered in 5 interviews), respondents without protest experience expressed a belief that they can achieve justice through their individual efforts, using available procedures and institutions, without participating in a collective effort: “I won a case as a result of slander” (male respondent, big city), or: “I sued the regional office of the National Tax Agency in Varna… Institutions need to be trained” (male respondent, big city).

Discussion

The results in the study offer valuable insights into the social psychology of (non)participation in protests in Bulgaria. The research reveals a complex interplay between respondents’ understanding of distributive, procedural, and retributive forms of justice and the significance of personal experience, socio-economic status, and trust in institutions.

This study is undeniably connected to the consideration of the multidimensional nature of justice perceptions. The motivations of participants to engage in or abstain from protests are not solely dictated by concerns or the existence of social and economic inequality or the lack of access to resources. They also relate, to no lesser extent, to their concerns about the existence of ineradicable procedural injustice, lack of transparency and accountability, and respect for individual rights and dignity. This conclusion is consistent with previous research highlighting the importance of procedural justice in shaping attitudes towards institutions and promoting social cohesion (Thibaut & Walker, 1975).

The study explicitly outlines the importance of personal experience in shaping perceptions of justice and motivation for participation in protests. Respondents who have personally experienced discrimination, economic hardship, or abuse of power are more likely to participate in protest activities. This conclusion supports the idea that experiences of injustice can serve as a powerful catalyst for collective action (Reicher, 1996).

Trust in institutions (or the lack of trust) proves to be a critical factor that influences the willingness to participate in protests among Bulgarian nationals. Participants declaring a higher level of trust in the government, the judicial system, and law enforcement agencies are less likely to participate in protest activities. Conversely, those who do not trust these institutions are more likely to take collective protest actions to challenge the existing systemic or institutional status quo. This conclusion is consistent with previous research highlighting the importance of trust in institutions for maintaining social order and promoting civic engagement (Putnam, 2000).

Social networks play a significant role in shaping perceptions of injustice and motivating participation in protests in Bulgaria. Respondents acknowledge that they are very often influenced by their friends, family members, and colleagues, and this is expressed in social networks. These, in turn, serve as sources of information, emotional support, and encouragement. This conclusion supports the finding that collective actions are often facilitated by social connections and shared identity (Della Porta & Diani, 2006).

The so-called paradox of irrationality exists – the data gathered from the interviews indicate that there are respondents (referents for civic groups) who do not participate in protests because they believe that this would be an irrational decision.

Conclusion

Nevertheless, we believe that the study presents valuable conclusions and contributions for the development of the social-psychological map of protest participation in Bulgaria and reveals the complex interrelationships of distributive, procedural, and retributive risks for guaranteeing justice. Furthermore, it finds the significance of personal experience, socio-economic status, and trust in institutions as determinants of the civic evaluation of justice in general. The results highlight the importance of addressing systemic inequalities and promoting trust in institutions to foster a more just and equitable society.

Future research efforts should likely adjust, and the item “perception of social injustice” may be disregarded, insofar as all of its sub-factor descriptions are recognized by respondents as a motive for justice and a motive for participating in protest. The latter two motives have partial overlap; and there is sporadic evidence that the individual without protest experience and participation also acts rationally in their social behavior.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical Approval

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institute for Population and Human Studies, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (Protocol No. НИД-11-287/04.07.24). The approval confirmed compliance with the ethical standards of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences regarding the conduct of semi-structured in-depth interviews.

Consent to Participate

All participants provided informed consent prior to participation. At the beginning of each recorded interview, respondents gave explicit oral consent after being informed about the purpose of the study, the procedures for data collection, the anonymous processing of their responses, the intended academic use of the data, and their right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequences. The anonymized research data are stored in the DigiKnow repository. Data processing and storage comply with the Internal Rules of the Institute for Population and Human Studies, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, concerning the processing and protection of research data and personal information, available at: https://iphs.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/GDPR_2025.pdf.

Acknowledgements

The research is carried out within Project КП-06-Н75/10 “Psychology of civic protest – socio-psychological determinants of collective action”, funded by the Bulgarian National Science Fund, Ministry of Education and Science, Bulgaria, and implemented by the Institute for Population and Human Studies, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (December 2023–December 2026). The project is led by Prof. Antoaneta Hristova as Principal Investigator.

References

1. Austin, W., Walster, E., & Utne, M. K. (1976). Equity and the Law: The Effect of a harmdoer’s “Suffering in the Act” on Liking and Assigned Punishment. In L. Berkowitz and E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 163-190. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60061-1
2. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
3. Brickman, P. (1977). Crime and Punishment in Sports and Society. Journal of Social
   Issues. 33,140-164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb01873.x
4. Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 164-209. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1791
5. Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective. Yale University Press.
6. Grisheva Dimitrova, E. (2020). Grazhdanska aktivnost v sotsialnite onlayn mrezhi [Civic activity in social online networks] [Doctoral dissertation synopsis]. Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”. https://www.uni-sofia.bg/index.php/bul/content/download/232293/1546558/version/1/file/Avtoreferat-E+Grisheva.pdf
7. Helson, H. (1964). Adaptaton-level theory: An Experimental and Systematic Approach to Behavior. Harper and Row.
8. Hristova, A., Zografova, Y., Dimitrova, E., & Miteva, P. (2024). New research model in the social psychology of protest. Psychological Research (in the Balkans), 27(1). https://doi.org/10.7546/PsyRB.2024.27.01.01
9. Kachakova, V. (2022). The Trust Crisis: Threats and Opportunities for Coping With the Emergency Situation Caused By Covid-19. Psychological Research (in the Balkans), 24(1), 64-75. https://journalofpsychology.org/index.php/1/article/view/20
10. Kawakami, K., & Dion, K. L. (1995). Social identity and affect as determinants of collective action: Toward an integration of relative deprivation and social identity theories. Theory & Psychology, 5(4), 551-577. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354395054005
11. Lerner, M. J., & Lerner, S. C. (Eds.). (1981). The justice motive in social behavior: Adapting to Times of Scarcity and Change (Critical Issues in Social Justice). Plenum Press.
12. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4
13. Mikula, G., & Wenzel, M. (2000). Justice and social conflict. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 126-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075900399420
14. Pachkova, P. (2016). Psychological Aspects of Civic Protests in Bulgaria. Psychological Thought, 9(2),  https://doi.org/10.5964/psyct.v9i2.189
15. Petkov, P. (2023). Problemăt za doverieto – sravnitelen analiz na dva izsledovatelski podhoda [The problem of trust – Comparative analysis of two research approaches]. Lichnost, Sotsialni Vrăzki i Kognitivni Protsesi [Personality, Social Relations and Cognitive Processes], 4, 101–108. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376957045_Problemt_za_doverieto_-sravnitelen_analiz_na_dva_izsledovatelski_podhoda_The_Problem_of_Trust-_Comparative_Analysis_of_Two_Research_Approaches
16. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon &
17. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9z6v
18. Reicher, S. D. (1996). ‘The Battle of Westminster’: Developing the social identity model of crowd behaviour in order to explain the initiation and development of collective conflict. European journal of social psychology, 26(1), 115-134. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199601)26:1<115::AID-EJSP740>3.0.CO;2-Z
19. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Erlbaum. https://lccn.loc.gov/75015944
20. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure.  L. Rev., 66, 541. https://doi.org/10.2307/3480099
21. Tilkidjiev, N. (2011). Trust and Well-Being: Bulgarian in a Comparative Perspective. Slovak Journal of Political Sciences, 11(1), 7-24. https://sjps.fsvucm.sk/Articles/11_1_1.pdf
22. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. Yale University Press.