While anti-trafficking organizations operate under the assumption that poorly educated rural residents do not have the capability or necessary resources to educate themselves about human trafficking, I found the opposite. Counter-trafficking organizations have reached their target audience: rural residents, people from lower social classes, and less education are more informed about human trafficking. Despite the organizations’ assumptions, another study also found that accurate information can empower rural people with knowledge on human rights, health, and employment, among others (Hoq 2012).
There are several explanations of why poorly educated rural inhabitants are more informed than others. First, rural residents from lower social classes are more informed about this problem because anti-trafficking organizations have been targeting them more frequently through awareness campaigns (Arap 2017; Rusu 2013). While awareness-raising has been homogeneously distributed throughout the country, targeting vulnerable groups has been performed by portraying these groups of people as more vulnerable to trafficking (Andrijasevic 2007; Revenco 2020). For example, trafficking victims have often been portrayed as women and people from rural regions (IOM 2013; IOM 2018). Also, human trafficking has been occurring more often in rural communities, which means that these residents are exposed to trafficking to a more significant extent (Botchkovar et al. 2016; Buckley 2009; COE 2012; Ghimpu et al. 2011; Panzaru 2013; Robinson 2011; Rusu 2013).
Organizations’ assumptions that human traffickers are more successful in rural areas because people have less access to objective information are also aligned with some scholars’ views as well (Van Impe 2000). In Albania as in all countries of origin of victims, organizations “run prevention programs including outreach to vulnerable populations such as street children and women in rural areas” (Botchkovar et al. 2016, p. 12) because these people are considered unaware about trafficking risks. Several researchers surveyed the Albanian and Moldovan public and asked, “Who do you perceive to be at greatest risk of being trafficked?” and found the following. In Albania, the public thinks that teenage girls, ethnic minorities, and rural residents to be most at risk of human trafficking. In Moldova, the public thinks individuals from vulnerable families, teenage girls, and rural residents to be most at risk to trafficking (Botchkovar et al. 2016). These findings suggest that organizations’ assumptions have been transmitted to the public as well. Mainly, the public has been informed that people with these characteristics are more likely to be trafficked, and that information can prevent them from being trafficked (Andrijasevic 2007; Arap 2017; Robinson 2011).
However, I found this not to be true in Moldova. In fact, throughout my interviews, many rural respondents have said that they know someone who has been exploited abroad or unpaid for their work, which prompts them to share this news and inform themselves about these risks. Thus, I explain that people in those areas are more incentivized to learn about this problem because it happens in their proximity. With this said, people rarely see labor exploitation risks abroad as trafficking-related risks.
Another nuance is that information and news spread differently depending on the locality (Uzezi 2015). Localities in Moldova range from small rural villages, small towns, to suburban areas, including the Capital city with only half a million people. Due to a small population and heavy reliance on mass media, the Moldovan public has been exposed to the same frequency of anti-trafficking campaigns (Revenco 2020; Rusu 2013). I observed that the same campaigns have been influencing public perception in distinctive ways, specifically billboards and educational programs in schools. While urban residents have been exposed to an abundance of information due to broader access to resources and information, massive exposure to anti-trafficking campaigns was something new to rural residents in the early 2000s. In the beginning, people in rural areas showed great interest in finding out more about human trafficking, with time; however, the rural public became uninterested in anti-trafficking campaigns as those became a regular occurrence.
Furthermore, information and news travel faster in small places by word-of-mouth from person to person (Rusu 2013). This practice does not only facilitate a more natural flow of trafficking-related information but adds a twist. The twist occurs when information has been altered when shared from person to person. I have observed this in more than 30 % of people from rural areas. For example, one villager told me that he has heard on the news that several trafficked people were identified in Italy, in the same region of Italy, where he has a cousin. He expressed his deep concern and called his cousin to warn him that there are trafficking risks. This villager has shared this news by adding the story of his cousin.
Personal stories add credibility to the mass media news and bring the problem closer to people in that community (Bradner and Mark 2002). Social psychologists have demonstrated through repeated experiments that information persuades people when it is distributed and shared by people similar to the recipients (Holmes and Singh 2012), which might explain why people are more likely to inform themselves about risks abroad when they know that their friends or relatives inform themselves about these risks. Furthermore, it is not so much about the information circulation as it is about the way people perceive this problem. When a social problem occurs in someone’s community, one is more likely to think that he/she is at a higher risk of being exposed to this problem as well.
Third, data revealed that rural people think of themselves as being at higher risk of trafficking compared to other people. More than 70% of rural people and only 35% of urban residents said that they could be trafficked when asked, “If you can be trafficked if you travel abroad uninformed?”. On the one hand, counter-trafficking organizations targeted rural people and convinced them that they were prone to being trafficked. On the other hand, many people in rural areas experienced instances of human trafficking in their communities and were more likely to think that this might happen to them too. Hence, these two key elements have played an essential role in leading rural people to believe that they are prone to trafficking. The assumption that the internalization of victimhood leads people to take additional care when seeking employment abroad has not been proved (Andrijasevic 2007). Many studies have shown that an increase in knowledge does not translate in the prescribed behavioral change (Hyman and Sheatsley 1947; Nieuwenhuys and Pécoud 2007; Pécoud 2010), which can explain why some categories of people are more informed about human trafficking yet fail to take proper care when traveling abroad.