cognitive manipulation, critical thinking, critical discourse analysis, mass medium, Internet, social network


The study puts an emphasis on exploring cognitive manipulations contained in the Internet resources (social networks and blogs) that have the greatest impact on students. The study was conducted with 159 students of Don State Technical University. 50 samples of media texts (of various formats) containing cognitive manipulation were taken from social networks sites and blogs. Focus group method, questionnaire, method of Critical Discourse Analysis and methods of mathematical statistics (Principal Component Analysis) were used for data collection and processing. The findings allow us to identify and describe the features of such cognitive manipulation as “presence effect”, “focus on pros”, “halo effect”, “emotional resonance”, “ambiguous language”, “anonymous authority”, “primacy effect”, “exaggeration” and identify the manipulations that have the greatest impact on students. Recommendations aimed at reduction of the impact of manipulative techniques were suggested. The results of the present study may help teachers and psychologists in their work.


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...


Asmolov, A. G. (2009). From we-media to I-media: Identity transformations in the virtual world. Psychology in Russia: State of the art, 2(1).

Burgoon, J. K., Blair, J. P., & Strom, R. E. (2008). Cognitive biases and nonverbal cue availability in detecting deception. Human Communication Research, 34(4), 572-599.

Chumakova, V. V., & Daineko V. V. (2015). Cifrovye obrazovatel’nye resursy i kognitivnye manipulyacii v obuchenii [Digital educational resources and cognitive manipulation in training]. Izvestiya VGPU. Pedagogicheskie nauki [News of VSPU. Pedagogical science]. 2(267), 41-44.

Demyankov, V. Z. (2017). Transfer znanij i kognitivnaya manipulyaciya [Knowledge transfer and cognitive manipulation]. Voprosy kognitivnoj lingvistiki [Issues of Cognitiv Lingvistics], 4, 5-13.

Dzyaloshinsky I. M. (2005). Manipulyativ nye tekhnologii v mass-media [Manipulative techniques in mass media]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Zhurnalistika [Bulletin of Moscow University. Journalism], 10, 56-76.

Facione P. A. (2013). Critical Thinking: What it is and Why it Counts. Measured Reasons and the California Academic Press, Millbrae.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. Boston: Addison Wesley.

Hovland, C. I. (1954). The Effects of the Mass Media of Communication In Handbook of Social Psychology 2(2), 1062-1103 by Carl I. Hovland edited by Gardner Lindzey

Kandyba, V. M. (2004). Technique of hypnosis in reality. The technique of a hidden human control. Saint-Petersburg: Lan’.

Kara-Murza S. G. (2004). Manipulation of consciousness. Moscow: Algorithm. (In Russian).

Klooster, D. (2001). What is critical thinking. Thinking Classroom, 4, 36-40.

Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., & Staksrud, E. (2018). European research on children’s internet use: Assessing the past and anticipating the future. New Media & Society, 20(3), 1103-1122.

Livingstone, S., & Third, A. (2017). Children and young people’s rights in the digital age: An emerging agenda. New Media & Society, 19(5), 657–670.

Maillat, D. & Oswald, S. (2011). “Constraining context: a pragmatic account of cognitive manipulation”. In Hart, Christopher (ed.).Critical discourse studies in context and cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 65-80.

Mikhaleva, O. L. (2009). Political discourse. The specificity of manipulative influence. Moscow: “LIBROKOM”. (In Russian).

Novković-Cvetković, B., & Stanojević D. (2018). Integrating digital technologies into teaching process. Teme, 42(4), 1219-1233.

Sperber, D., Cara, F., & Girotto, V. (1995). Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition, 57(1), 31-95.

Stanković, Z., Maksimović, J., & Osmanović, J. (2018). Cognitive theories and paradigmatic research posts in the function of multimedia teaching and learning. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education/IJCRSEE, 6(2), 107-114.

Stanojevic, D. M., Cenić, D., & Cenić, S. (2018). Application of computers in modernization of teaching science. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education:(IJCRSEE), 6(2), 89-106.

Stošić, L., & Stosic, I. (2013). Diffusion of innovation in modern school. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education:(IJCRSEE), 1(1), 5-13.

Sukhanov, Y. Y. (2018). Political discourse as object of linguistic analysis. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 9(1), 200-212.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359-383.

Voiskounsky, A. E. (2010). Internet addiction in the context of positive psychology. Psychology in Russia: state of the art, 3, 541-549.

Wodak, R. (2006). Mediation between discourse and society: assessing cognitive approaches in CDA. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 179–190.

Zelinsky S.A. (2014). Manipulation of the masses and psychoanalysis. CANADA.: Altaspera Publishing & Literary Agency Inc. 396.

Zhdanko, A. P. (2018). Identifying extremist behaviour in youtube comments and the formation of anty-extremist values. Paper presented at the 5th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM 2018. Vienna, Austria.

Internet sources:




How to Cite

Zhdanko, A. (2019). IDENTIFICATION OF COGNITIVE MANIPULATIONS THAT HAVE THE GREATEST IMPACT ON STUDENTS IN THE INTERNET. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 7(1), 35–42.