Open Access Indonesia Journal of Social Sciences https://www.journalsocialsciences.com/index.php/oaijss en-US <div class="sp-policy" style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.75; color: #243746; max-width: 960px; margin: 0 auto; text-align: left; overflow-wrap: anywhere;"> <h3>Author ownership</h3> <p>Authors retain copyright and publishing rights in their work. Submission and publication do not transfer copyright ownership to HM Publisher, CMHC Research Center or OAIJSS.</p> <h3>Publication and reuse</h3> <p>Authors grant OAIJSS the right of first publication. The journal’s publication licence is the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)</a>. Authors may reuse their own work and authorise additional uses, subject to any rights held by co-authors or third parties.</p> <h3>Self-archiving</h3> <p>Authors may deposit the submitted manuscript, accepted manuscript and published version in institutional or subject repositories without an embargo. Identify the version, acknowledge publication in OAIJSS and add the article DOI or journal link when available. Preserve the licence and attribution accompanying the deposited version.</p> <h3>Website copyright</h3> <p>Copyright notices for the OAIJSS website, layout and visual identity apply only to those elements. They do not replace or restrict the copyright and reuse rights of article authors.</p> <p><a href="https://www.journalsocialsciences.com/index.php/oaijss/policies">Journal Policies</a> · <a href="https://www.journalsocialsciences.com/index.php/oaijss/guideline">Author Guidelines</a> · <a href="https://www.journalsocialsciences.com/index.php/oaijss/submission">Submit a Manuscript</a></p> </div> indonesiajournalsocialsciences@gmail.com (HM Publisher) indonesiajournalsocialsciences@gmail.com (HM Publisher) Mon, 22 Jun 2026 03:40:00 +0000 OJS 3.1.2.4 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss 60 Digital Visibility, Algorithmic Misclassification, and Welfare Exclusion Among Informal Workers: A Mixed-Methods Study in Indonesia https://www.journalsocialsciences.com/index.php/oaijss/article/view/325 <p><strong>Background: </strong>Algorithmic governance is reshaping social protection, but the distributive consequences of automated welfare targeting in the Global South remain poorly understood.</p> <p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine whether digital transaction visibility and employment informality predict false-negative welfare exclusion, whether perceived algorithmic misclassification mediates these effects, and whether algorithmic procedural justice moderates them.</p> <p><strong>Methods: </strong>An explanatory-sequential mixed-methods design combined an audit of 2,500 automated eligibility decisions, a cross-sectional survey of 640 household heads in Palembang, Indonesia, and phenomenological interviews with false-negative cases.</p> <p><strong>Results: </strong>The audit found 72.3% accuracy and a 23.4% false-negative rate. Informality, misclassification, and digital visibility predicted exclusion, while procedural justice was protective; the model explained 52% of variance. Misclassification partially mediated the association, and non-digital informal workers had 4.27 times higher odds of exclusion.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Algorithmic unfairness reflected parameterization bias against informal livelihoods, supporting conditional human oversight and accessible appeal mechanisms.</p> Harun Urrashid, Fitriyanti Fitriyanti Copyright (c) https://www.journalsocialsciences.com/index.php/oaijss/article/view/325 Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000 Synthetic Reality and the Erosion of Epistemic Trust: Deepfake Misinformation, Confirmation Bias, and Democratic Cynicism Among Indonesian Voters https://www.journalsocialsciences.com/index.php/oaijss/article/view/326 <p><strong>Background: </strong>AI-generated synthetic media threatens democratic consolidation, but most evidence is Western, video-centred, and rarely models citizens' political attitudes.</p> <p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine how illusion of authenticity, confirmation-bias acceleration, and Liar's Dividend perceptions relate to democratic cynicism among Indonesian voters, including mediation by confirmation bias and moderation by synthetic-media literacy.</p> <p><strong>Methods: </strong>A nested mixed-methods design combined computational extraction of 4,200 synthetic-media items, a cross-sectional survey of 3,000 adults across three Indonesian urban centres, and digital ethnography with 50 key informants.</p> <p><strong>Results: </strong>Cloned audio was trusted by 76.2% of respondents but detected by only 11.5%. Authenticity illusion, confirmation bias, and Liar's Dividend perception predicted cynicism, explaining 33.0% of variance. Confirmation bias partially mediated the authenticity-cynicism pathway; literacy lowered cynicism but did not buffer the pathway.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings extend deepfake scholarship to oral, messaging-centred Global-South publics and support targeted electoral-integrity policy.</p> Yuniarti Maretha Pasaribu, Aaliyah El-Hussaini Copyright (c) https://www.journalsocialsciences.com/index.php/oaijss/article/view/326 Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000 The Algorithmic Sanctuary: Social-Interaction Burnout, Loneliness, and Emotional Attachment to AI Companions Among Young Adults in Indonesia https://www.journalsocialsciences.com/index.php/oaijss/article/view/327 <p><strong>Background: </strong>Large-language-model AI companions invite reciprocal-seeming parasocial relationships, yet no integrated model explains why relational strain translates into machine attachment in a Global-South setting.</p> <p><strong>Objective: </strong>To test whether social-interaction burnout and loneliness predict attachment to AI companions, whether parasocial interaction mediates the burnout-attachment path, and whether collectivist judgment apprehension moderates the loneliness-attachment link.</p> <p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional survey of 1,200 young adults recruited through a public organization in Palembang measured burnout, loneliness, judgment apprehension, AI parasocial interaction, and emotional attachment using validated scales.</p> <p><strong>Results: </strong>The model explained 48% of attachment variance. Parasocial interaction, loneliness, and burnout were the strongest predictors. Parasocial interaction partially mediated the burnout-attachment path, and judgment apprehension strengthened the loneliness-attachment association.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings support an 'Algorithmic Sanctuary' account of AI companionship and inform digital-wellbeing policy in collectivist societies.</p> Ni Made Nova Indriani, Immanuel Simbolon, Sophia Lucille Rodriguez Copyright (c) https://www.journalsocialsciences.com/index.php/oaijss/article/view/327 Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000 Institutional Publication Pressure and Perceived Epistemic Injustice: Mediating Roles of Cost Privatization and Research Cannibalization in Indonesia https://www.journalsocialsciences.com/index.php/oaijss/article/view/328 <p><strong>Background: </strong>The article-processing-charge model has reorganized the political economy of knowledge production, while researcher-level perceptions of fairness remain under-measured in the Global South.</p> <p><strong>Objective: </strong>To test whether institutional publication pressure predicts perceived epistemic injustice and whether publication-cost privatization and research cannibalization mediate that relationship among Indonesian academics.</p> <p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional survey of 312 academics used validated multi-item scales, multiple regression, parallel mediation with 5,000 bootstrap samples, moderation, common-method testing, and multicollinearity diagnostics.</p> <p><strong>Results: </strong>Publication pressure, cost privatization, and research cannibalization independently predicted epistemic injustice, explaining 34.6% of variance. Both mediators carried significant indirect effects, and perceived grant availability buffered the pressure-to-privatization path.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Publication mandates without adequate funding may generate perceived epistemic injustice; the findings formalize the 'illusion of inclusivity' as a measurable perception.</p> Ahmad Erza, Dais Susilo, Gladys Putri Copyright (c) https://www.journalsocialsciences.com/index.php/oaijss/article/view/328 Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000 From Eco-Anxiety to Climate Activism: The Moderating Role of Collective Efficacy Among Generation Z in Indonesia https://www.journalsocialsciences.com/index.php/oaijss/article/view/329 <p><strong>Background: </strong>Whether ecological anxiety paralyses or mobilises young people remains contested, and evidence from the Global South is limited.</p> <p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether collective efficacy moderates the eco-anxiety-climate activism relationship and whether catalytic eco-anger mediates it among Indonesian Generation Z.</p> <p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional survey included 1,500 participants aged 16-24 years recruited through public organizations in Palembang. Validated scales, regression, simple-slope analysis, and bootstrap mediation were used.</p> <p><strong>Results: </strong>Collective efficacy positively predicted activism and produced a crossover interaction: eco-anxiety predicted lower activism at low efficacy but higher activism at high efficacy. Catalytic eco-anger competitively mediated the association against a negative direct effect.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Collective efficacy conditions whether climate distress becomes organized activism, extending collective-action theory and informing Indonesian youth and climate policy.</p> Jasmila Tanjung, Sarah Armalia, Zahra Amir Copyright (c) https://www.journalsocialsciences.com/index.php/oaijss/article/view/329 Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000