Cover not available
Part of
Manufacturing Dissent: Manipulation and counter-manipulation in times of crisis
Edited by Cornelia Ilie
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 339] 2024
► pp. 85–118

Chapter 3
Manipulating citizens’ beliefs and emotions

Consensus-seeking and dissensus-generating tactics in crisis management

| Strömstad Academy

In times of crisis, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, social divisions caused by dissensus about controversial government policies escalate due to widespread uncertainty and anxiety, fuelled by the proliferation of covert and overt manipulative strategies in official discourses. Like citizens in other countries, Swedes received during the Covid-19 crisis scarce or inconsistent information, and potentially misleading messages, while seeking to preserve a trust-based and tradition-rooted national consensus. Using a pragma-rhetorical and argumentation framework of analysis, this study scrutinizes the controversies emerging from the polarization of online comments made by reactive and counter-reactive citizens who either supported or challenged the controversial policies promoted by the Swedish Public Health Agency. The fallacies underlying the commenters’ arguments and counter-arguments show how initially reasonable discussions turned into deeply polarized disputes, as a manifestation of social dissent.

Keywords: manipulation, crisis, crisis, Covid-19 pandemic, cognitive dissonance, health policies, consensus, dissensus
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Controversial management of crisis communication
  • 3.Manipulative communication strategies
    • 3.1Discursive strategies of manipulation
      • Statements disguised as questions
      • Overgeneralizations or oversimplifications
      • Emotive or loaded words
    • 3.2Argumentative strategies of manipulation
      • One-sidedness
      • Definitions and re-definitions
  • 4.Analytical approaches and research questions
  • 5.Miscommunication and misinformation about the Covid-19 pandemic
  • 6.From consensus to dissensus and back again
  • 7.Cognitive dissonance paradigms
  • 8.To wear or not to wear a face mask
  • 9.“These are the reasons why Swedes should wear masks”
  • 10.Conclusions
    • Compliance with ethical standards
  • References
Published online: 17 January 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.339.03ili
References
Aakhus, Mark, and Esther Rumsey
2010 “Crafting Supportive Communication Online: A Communication Design Analysis of Conflict in an Online Support Group.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 38(1): 65–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Åberg, John H. S.
2019 “Is There a State Crisis in Sweden?” Society 56, 23–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amossy, Ruth
2010 “The Functions of Polemical Discourse in the Public Sphere.” In Michelle Smith, and Barbara Warnick (eds.). The Responsibilities of Rhetoric, 52–51. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
Andersson, Jan, and Mats Furberg
1996 Språk och påverkan: Om argumentationens semantik, 8th edition. Stockholm: Bokförlaget Thales.Google Scholar
Aronson, Elliot
1992 “The Return of the Repressed: Dissonance Theory Makes a Comeback.” Psychological Inquiry 3(4): 303–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asch, Solomon Eliot
1956 “Studies of Independence and Conformity: A Minority of One against a Unanimous Majority.” Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 70(9): 1–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnhill, Anne
2014 “What Is Manipulation?” In Manipulation: Theory and Practice, edited by Christian Coons, and Michael Weber, 51–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baron, Marcia
2003 “Manipulativeness.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 77(2): 37–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berrocal, Martina
2024 “Maintaining political authority and credibility during the Covid-19 crisis: The case of Czech government press conferences.” In Manufacturing Dissent: Manipulation and counter-manipulation in times of crisis, edited by Cornelia Ilie. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Billig, Michael
1987 Arguing and Thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. European Monographs in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1993 “Studying the Thinking Society: Social Representations, Rhetoric and Attitudes.” In Empirical Approaches to Social Representations, edited by Glynis M. Breakwell, and David V. Canter, 39–62. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bjørdahl, Kristian, and Benedicte Carlsen
(eds.) 2019 Pandemics, Publics and Politics: Staging Responses to Public Health Crises. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Björklund, Kelly, and Andrew Ewing
2020 “The Swedish Covid-19 Response Is a Disaster. It Shouldn’t Be a Model for the Rest of the World.” Time, 14 October 2020.Google Scholar
Boczkowski, Pablo J., Eugenia Mitchelstein, and Martín Walter
2011 “Convergence across Divergence: Understanding the Gap in the Online News Choices of Journalists and Consumers in Western Europe and Latin America.” Communication Research 38(3): 376–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Greg N.
2011 “The Semantic Composition of English Generic Sentences.” In Properties, Types and Meaning, vol. 2 Semantic Issues, edited by Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara H. Partee, and Raymond Turner, 167–192. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Casagrande, David G.
2004 “Power and the Rhetorical Manipulation of Cognitive Dissonance.” Paper delivered at the Presidential Session of the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association. 15–19 December, 2004. Atlanta, GA.
CERC (Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication) Manual
2014 CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). US Department of Health and Human Services. [URL]
Cohen, A.
1996 Think Generic: The Meaning and Use of Generic Sentences, Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.
Coleman, Stephen, Nely Konstantinova, and Giles Moss
2020 The Pandemic and its Publics. How People Receive, Interpret and Act upon Official Guidance. Leeds: University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Coombs, Timothy W., and Sherry Holladay
2015 “CSR as Crisis Risk: Expanding How We Conceptualize the Relationship.” Corporate Communications: An International Journal 20(2): 144–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coons, Christian, and Michael Weber
(eds.) 2014 Manipulation: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David
2001 Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Darius, Philipp, and Michael Urquhart
2021 “Disinformed social movements: A large-scale mapping of conspiracy narratives as online harms during the Covid-19 pandemic.” Online Social Networks and Media 26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Todd and Seeta Peña Gangadharan
(eds.) 2009 Online Deliberation: Design, Research and Practice. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Festinger, Leon
1957 A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Festinger, Leon, and James M. Carlsmith
1959 “Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance.” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 58(2): 203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garber, Marjorie
2012 Loaded Words. New York: Fordham University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Govier, Trudy
2007 “Two is a Small Number: False Dichotomies Revisited.” In OSSA Conference Archive 57. [URL]
Gula, Robert J.
2002 Nonsense: A Handbook of Logical Fallacies. Mount Jackson, VA: Axios Press.Google Scholar
Harmon-Jones, Eddie, and Judson Mills
2019 “An Introduction to Cognitive Dissonance Theory and an Overview of Current Perspectives on the Theory.” In Cognitive Dissonance: Reexamining a Pivotal Theory in Psychology, edited by Eddie Harmon-Jones, 3–24. American Psychological Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia
2009a “Strategies of Refutation by Definition: A Pragma-rhetorical Approach to Refutations in American Public Speech.” In Pondering on Problems of Argumentation. Twenty Essays on Theoretical Issues, edited by Frans H. Eemeren, and Bart Garssen, 35–51. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009b “Ideologically Biased Definitions as Institutionally Legitimating Arguments.” In Perspectives on Language Use and Pragmatics, edited by Alessandro Capone, 116–144. München: Lincom.Google Scholar
2015 “Metadiscursive Strategies in Dialogue: Legitimising Confrontational Rhetoric.” In Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, edited by Alessandro Capone, and Jacob L. Mey, 601–613. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
2018 “Pragmatics vs Rhetoric: Political Discourse at the Pragmatics-Rhetoric Interface.” In Pragmatics and Its Interfaces, edited by Cornelia Ilie and Neal Norrick, 85–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021 “Discussion, Dispute or Controversy? Paradigms of Conflict-driven Parliamentary Practices.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 9(2): 237–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022a “Strategic Questioning.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Persuasion, edited by Jeanne D. Fahnestock, and Randy Allen Harris, 165–189. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022b “How to Argue with Questions and Answers: Argumentation Strategies in Parliamentary Deliberation.” Languages 7(3), 205: 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaspers, Jos M., and Colin Fraser
1984 “Attitudes and Social Representations.” In Social Representations, edited by Robert M. Farr, and Serge Moscovici, 101–123. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jungkunz, Sebastian
2021 “Political Polarization during the Covid-19 Pandemic.” Frontiers in Political Science, 4 March 2021. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kampmark, Binoy
2021 “COVID Meets Volvo: The Swedish Public Health Approach to Coronavirus.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of European Studies 13(1): 85–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazaridou-Chatzigoga, Dimitra, and Linnaea Stockall
2013 “Genericity, Exceptions and Domain Restriction: Experimental Evidence from Comparison with Universals.” In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17, (ENS Paris – 8–10 September 2012), edited by Emmanuel Chemla, Vincent Homer, and Grégoire Winterstein, 325–343.
Lewinski, Marcin, and Steve Oswald
2013 “When and How Do We Deal with Straw Men? A Normative and Cognitive Pragmatic Account.” Journal of Pragmatics 59(B): 164–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maillat, Didier, and Steve Oswald
2024 “Manipulation in Exceptional Times: Exploiting Overwhelming Contextual Parameters for Manipulative Purposes.” In Manufacturing Dissent: Manipulation and counter-manipulation in times of crisis, edited by Cornelia Ilie. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcoccia, Michel
2004 “On-line Polylogues: Conversation Structure and Participation Framework in Internet Newsgroups.” Journal of Pragmatics 36: 115–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marinho, Cristina, and Michael Billig
2024 “How Can Governments Be Prevented from Manipulating Statistics about Covid-19? An Example from UK Politics.” In Manufacturing Dissent: Manipulation and counter-manipulation in times of crisis, edited by Cornelia Ilie. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, Lilliana
2015 ““I Disrespectfully Agree”: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 59, 128–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Michel
1996 “Rhetoric and the Theory of Argument.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 50(196): 325–357.Google Scholar
Nettel, Ana Laura, and Georges Roque
2012 “Persuasive Argumentation versus Manipulation.” Argumentation 26, 55–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niedzielski, Henry
2017 “Manipulative Techniques in the Language of Propaganda.” In Dialoganalyse V: Referate der 5. Arbeitstagung, Paris 1994, ed.by Etienne Piétri, 477–486. Berlin and Boston: Max Niemeyer Verlag,.Google Scholar
O’Hair, Dan H., and Mary John O’Hair
(eds.) 2021 Communicating Science in Times of Crisis: Coronavirus. Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orwell, George
1946 Politics and the English Language. Mount Holyoke College, Department of International Relations.Google Scholar
Pashakhanlou, Arash Heydarian
2021 “Sweden’s Coronavirus Strategy: The Public Health Agency and the Sites of Controversy.” World Medical & Health Policy, June 3(10): 1–21.Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm
1989 Rhétoriques. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Reboul, Anne
2021 “Truthfully Misleading: Truth, Informativity, and Manipulation in Linguistic Communication.” Frontiers in Communication 6: 646820. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rivera, Heather
2019 “Historian’s Fallacy.” In Bad Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Fallacies in Western Philosophy, edited by Robert Arp, Steven Barbone, and Michael Bruce, 163–165. Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rose, Diana, Danielle Efraim, Marie-Claude Gervais, Hélène Joffe, Sandra Jovchelovitch, and Nicola Morant
1995 “Questioning Consensus in Social Representations Theory.” Papers on Social Representations 4(2): 150–176.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Göran
2002 “The Crisis of Consensus in Postwar Sweden.” In Culture and Crisis: The Case of Germany and Sweden, edited by Nina Witoszek, and Lars Trägårdh, 170–201. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Sandemose, Aksel
1933 En flyktning krysser sitt spor (A Fugitive Crosses his Tracks). Oslo: Tiden.Google Scholar
Stanchi, Kathryn M.
2013 “What Cognitive Dissonance Tells Us About Tone in Persuasion.” Journal of Law and Policy 22: 93–134.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Charles
1944 Ethics and Language. Connecticut: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Stopfner, Maria
2024 “Spanish Influenza 1918/19: A diachronic and cross-cultural perspective on blame and blame-avoidance in media and politics in times of crisis.” In Manufacturing Dissent: Manipulation and counter-manipulation in times of crisis, edited by Cornelia Ilie. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomić, Taeda
2013 “False Dilemma: A Systematic Exposition.” Argumentation 27(4): 347–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trotter, Stephen Richard
2015 “Breaking the Law of Jante.” Myth and Nation. Special Issue eSharp 23: 1–24.Google Scholar
Tueanrat, Ying, and Eleftherios Alamanos
2023 “Cognitive Dissonance Theory: A Review.” In TheoryHub Book: A Theory Resource for Students and Researchers Alike, edited by Savvas Papagiannidis. Newcastle-upon-Tyne.Google Scholar
2006 “Discourse and Manipulation.” Discourse & Society 17(3): 359–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas
1987 Informal Fallacies: Towards a Theory of Argument Criticisms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999 One-sided Arguments: A Dialectical Analysis of Bias. State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
2000 Scare Tactics: Arguments that Appeal to Fear and Threats. Dordrecht, Netherlands, and Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 “How to Evaluate Argumentation Using Schemes, Diagrams, Critical Questions and Dialogues.” Studies in Communication Sciences, Special Issue, 51–74.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Krabbe, Erik C. W.
1995 Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Fabrizio Macagno
2015 “The Importance and Trickiness of Definition Strategies in Legal and Political Argumentation.” Journal of Politics and Law 8(1): 137–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wardle, Claire
2019 “Misinformation Has Created a New World Disorder.” Scientific American 321(3): 88–93.Google Scholar
Witoszek, Nina, and Trägårdh, Lars
(eds.) 2002 Culture and Crisis: The Case of Germany and Sweden. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar