«Selective Shock» as a Cognitive Response Model: A Sentiment and Topic Modeling Analysis of Russia Today’s Coverage of the Trump Assassination Attempt

This article proposes an interdisciplinary framework, based on Daniel Kahneman’s dual-system model of thought, to analyse the affective and structural shifts within the media landscape during political crises. The proposed framework is applied to the coverage by the state-affiliated outlet Russia Today (RT) of the shock event – the assassination attempt on Donald Trump - on July 14, 2024. Using an integrated application of sentiment analysis and topic modelling, the study identifies the «selective shock» model. This model is characterized by an immediate but short-term concentration of editorial resources on the event (a System 1 activation), accompanied by a sharp peak in negative sentiment. The topic modeling confirms that this affective peak is achieved through the near-total monopolization of the news agenda by the crisis narrative. Following a brief period of maximum emotional intensity, there is a rapid «reset» back to the routine editorial policy. The findings indicate that the cognitive patterns of state media can be determined by their institutional role and strategic objectives within the context of global information confrontation. The paper contributes to the methodology of international security studies by offering an analytical toolkit for the quantitative measurement of cognitive patterns within media discourse and opening perspectives for studying information operations in the digital age.

1. Allen J. et al. Evaluating the Fake News Problem at the Scale of the Information Ecosystem. Science Advances. 2020; 6(14):eaay3539 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay3539.

2. Arceneaux K. The Benefits of Experimental Methods for the Study of Campaign Effects. Political Communication. 2010; 27(2):199–215 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584601003709407.

3. Barnett M. Social Constructivism. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations / J.Baylis, S.Smith, P.Owens (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017:144–159 [In English].

4. Bjola C., Zaiotti R., eds. Digital Diplomacy and International Organisations: Autonomy, Legitimacy and Contestation. Routledge, 2020 [In English].

5. Bjola C., Papadakis K. Digital Propaganda, Counterpublics and the Disruption of the Public Sphere: the Finnish Approach to Building Digital Resilience. Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 2020; 33(5):638–666 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2019.1704221.

6. Boin A. The Politics of Crisis Management: Public Leadership under Pressure / A.Boin, P.’t Hart, E.Stern, B.Sundelius. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016 [In English].

7. De Neys W. Advancing Theorizing about Fast-and-Slow Thinking. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2023; 46:e111 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X2200142X.

8. Entman R.M. Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication. 1993; 43(4):51–58 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.

9. Evans J.S.B.T. Dual Process Theory: Perspectives and Problems. W.De Neys (Ed.), Dual Process Theory 2.0. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2018:137–155 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315204550.

10. Giles K. Handbook of Russian Information Warfare. Rome: NATO Defense College, 2022 [In English].

11. Grimmer J. Text as Data: A New Framework for Machine Learning and the Social Sciences / J.Grimmer, M.E.Roberts, B.M.Stewart. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022 [In English].

12. Grootendorst M. BERTopic: Neural Topic Modeling with a Class-Based TF-IDF Procedure. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05794. 2022 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.05794.

13. Gurr G., Metag J. Examining Avoidance of Ongoing Political Issues in the News: A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Audience Issue Fatigue. International Journal of Communication. 2021; 15:1789–1809 [In English].

14. Hermann C.F. International Crises: Insights from Behavioral Research. New York: Free Press, 1972 [In English].

15. Heřmanová M., Eriksson Krutrök M., Divon T. “The Algorithm Loves the War”: Ambivalent Visibility in Content Creator Practices during War. Continuum. 2025:1–17 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2025.2507777.

16. Kahneman D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011 [In English].

17. Manor I. The Digitalization of Public Diplomacy. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022 [In English].

18. Marcus G.E., Valentino N.A., Vasilopoulos P. et al. Applying the Theory of Affective Intelligence to Support for Authoritarian Policies and Parties. Advances in Political Psychology. 2019; 40(1):109–139 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12571.

19. Martel C. Reliance on Emotion Promotes belief in Fake News. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications. 2020; 5(47):1–20 [In English].

20. Newton C, Feeney J, Pennycook G. On the Disposition to Think Analytically: Four Distinct Intuitive- Analytic Thinking Styles. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2024; 50(6):906–923 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231154886.

21. Pennycook G. The Psychology of Fake News. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2021; 25(5):388–402 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007.

22. Rid T. Active Measures: The Secret History of Disinformation and Political Warfare. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2020 [In English].

23. Seeger M.W. Best Practices in Crisis Communication: An Expert Panel Process. Journal of Applied Communication Research. 2006; 34(3):232–244 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880600769944.

24. Szostek J. Nothing is True? The Credibility of News and Conflicting Narratives during ‘Information War’ in Ukraine. The International Journal of Press/Politics. 2018; 27(1):143–167 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161217743258.

25. Thompson V.A., Turner J.A., Pennycook G. et al. The Role of Answer Fluency and Perceptual Fluency as Metacognitive Cues for Initiating Analytic Thinking. Cognition. 2013; 128(2):237–251 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.012.

26. Van der Meer T.G.L.A., Jin Y. Seeking Formula for Misinformation Treatment in Public Health Crises: The Effects of Corrective Information Type and Source. Health Communication. 2019; 35(5):560–575 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1573295.

27. Walgrave S. The Contingency of the Mass Media’s Political Agenda Setting Power: Toward a Preliminary Theory. Journal of Communication. 2006; 56(1):88–109 [In English]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00005.x.