Email this article Features of the use of cognitive biases in native advertising
- Authors: Glukhova E.S.1
-
Affiliations:
- Issue: No 2 (2024)
- Pages: 90-102
- Section: Articles
- URL: https://journal-vniispk.ru/2454-0749/article/view/370301
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.7256/2454-0749.2024.2.69683
- EDN: https://elibrary.ru/WETNCC
- ID: 370301
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
The aim of the study is to detect cognitive biases embedded in native advertising articles and their hidden influence on the addressees in order to increase sales of their product. The identification of cognitive biases and the linguocognitive mechanisms behind them is aimed at combating manipulative practices in advertising and increasing awareness of a wide audience when perceiving advertising messages. This study is a development of the concept of effective communication and the technology of "Smart tuning". Cognitive biases in native advertising are chosen as the object of research, and the subject is the ways of verbalization of cognitive biases. The research material is selected from sponsored content articles in both Russian and English segments of online communication. The relevance of this research lies in the significance of analyzing native advertising in media discourse from the perspectives of cognitive linguistics within cognitive-discursive and biological approaches. The main research methods are the method of interpretation, the method of discourse analysis and random sampling statistical method. It is determined, that the use of cognitive biases to persuade addressees into making purchases is widespread in native advertising, particularly in the form of sponsored content. At least one cognitive bias was identified in 80% of the analyzed advertising articles. The following cognitive biases were identified: bandwagon effect, framing effect in various subclasses, authority effect, emotional reasoning, fear of missing out, narrative fallacy, halo effect, compromise effect, contrast and anchoring effect, confirmation bias, catastrophizing. These cognitive biases involve such linguocognitive mechanisms as framing, imagining in the form of intensification and positivization, focusing, inspiration, involvement in communication and in the game , pseudo-dialogue, personalization, spin doctoring, catastrophizing, which indicate a synergistic cognitive impact on the addressee.
References
Mелехова А. С. Нативная реклама как элемент digital-коммуникационной стратегии бренда // Вестник экономики, права и социологии. 2015. № 3. С. 242-245. Wojdynski B. W. Native advertising: Engagement, deception, and implications for theory // The New Advertising: Branding, Content and Consumer Relationships in the Data-Driven Social Media Era. 2016. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger/ABC Clio. pp. 203-236. Якоба И. А. Когнитивно-коммуникативная параметризация медийного дискурcа: дис. … д-ра филол. наук: 10.02.19. Иркутск, 2020. 399 с. Якоба И. А. Когнитивные искажения как средство манипуляции в новостном дискурсе в сфере информационных технологий // Известия Байкальского государственного университета. 2023. Т. 33, № 4. С. 762-771. Демьянков В. З. Интерпретация как инструмент и как объект лингвистики // Когнитивные аспекты лексикографии. 1999. № 2. С. 5-13. [Электронный ресурс] URL: http://www.infolex.ru/Interpret.html (дата обращения 20.12.23). Дейк Ван Т. А. Дискурс и власть: Репрезентация доминирования в языке и коммуникации: пер. с англ. Е. А. Кожемякина и др. М.: Книжный дом «Либроком», 2013. 344 с. Демьянков В. З. Интерпретация, понимание и лингвистические аспекты их моделирования на ЭВМ. М.: Изд-во МГУ, 1989. 171 с. Болдырев Н. Н., Ефименко Т. Н. Вторичная интерпретация научного знания в дискурсе СМИ // Медиалингвистика. 2022. Т. 9, № 4. С. 355-368. Канеман Д. Думай медленно… решай быстро. М.: АСТ, 2016. 653 с. Kahneman D., Slovic P., Tversky A, (eds.). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2008. 555 p. Якоба И. А., Глухова Е. С. Манипулятивный потенциал когнитивных искажений в рекламных текстах // Коммуникативные исследования. 2024. Т. 11. № 1. Tversky A., Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and psychology of choice // Science. New series. 1981. Vol. 211. No. 4481. pp. 453-458. Druckman J. N. The implications of framing effects for citizen competence // Political Behavior. 2001. Vol. 23. No. 3. pp. 225-256. Levin I. P., Schneider S. L., Gaeth G. J. All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects // Organizational behavior and human decision process. 1998. Vol. 76. No. 2. pp. 149-188. Bunčić S., Krstić J., Kostić-Stanković M. Cognitive biases in marketing communication: Influence of anchoring and message framing on consumers' perception and willingness to purchase // Marketing. 2021. Vol. 52. No. 2. pp. 103-117. Leibenstein H. Bandwagon, snob, and veblen effects in the theory of consumers’ demand // The Quarterly journal of economics. 1950. Vol. 64. No. 2. pp. 183-207. Secchi D., Bardone E. Socially distributed cognition and intra-organizational bandwagon: Theoretical framework, model, and simulation // International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior. 2013. Vol. 16. No. 4. pp. 521-572. Татаринов К. А., Белых Е. Р., Филатенко Е. А. Психологические аспекты эмоциональной рекламы // Азимут научных исследований: педагогика и психология. 2020. Т. 9. № 3 (32). С. 39-42
Supplementary files
