Psychological Peculiarities of Understanding by Students Internet Texts

Keywords: Internet text, understanding, psychological peculiarities of understanding, predictors of understanding, contextuality, psychological context, emotional context, multifaceted paradigm.


The purpose of the article is to show psychological peculiarities of understanding by students Internet texts and to determine the predictors of such understanding.

Methods and methodical instrumentation of the research. The following scientific methods were used as the basis of the research: holistic analysis of the text, problem-thematic analysis, also comparative analysis. The following methods have also been used to study the research material: the descriptive method; the method of distributive analysis; the method of syntactic transformation. Also we used the author’s questionnaire to determine the goals of interpersonal communication in the Internet space (Nabochuk, 2020); the questionnaire (Shkuratova, 2019), which has the aim to determine the motives of direct and indirect interpersonal communication; the questionnaire with the purpose to provide diagnostics of interpersonal relationships by T. Leary (The questionnaire of diagnostics of interpersonal relationships, 2018).

The results of the research. It was built a semantic space that characterized the process of understanding of artistic Internet texts of journalistic discourse. Students evaluated the content of these texts by 30 bipolar scales, which were combined after factor analysis into 7 blocks of factors that characterize the “evaluation” of a particular Internet text. (1). “The Assessment”: successful – unsuccessful; interesting – uninteresting; strong – weak; pleasant – unpleasant; predicative – non-predicative. (2). “Tension or Strength”: difficult – easy to understand; tense – frivolous; exceptional – everyday; chained – free; active – inactive; aggressive – non-aggressive; authoritarian – democratic. (3). “Realism or vitality”: natural – fictional; near – far; real – unreal. (4). “Emotional tone”: pessimistic – optimistic; sad – cheerful; selfish – unselfish; suspicious – acceptable. (5). “Depth or psychological content”: psychological – non-psychological; reflective – non reflective; serious – unserious; reasonable – unreasonable; logical – illogical; convenient – inconvenient; dialogical – monologue; dependent – independent. (6). “The Abstractness”: abstract – concrete; fantastic – real. (7). “Multifaceted”: multifaceted – one-sided; complex – simple; compressed – expanded.

Conclusions. According to the results of our research, we determined four main psychological peculiarities of understanding by students Internet texts. These peculiarities are: (1) understanding the Internet text by its contextuality, the predictors of which are: reality, versatility, paradigm, descriptiveness, deepness, subjectiveness and personally centered qualities; (2) understanding the Internet text by its psychological context, which includes such predictors, as: psychological justification, compressiveness, interest, entertaining, satisfaction, harmoniousness, emotiveness, expressiveness; (3) understanding the Internet text by its emotional context and predictors, such as: comfort, stylistic expressiveness, convenience, expressiveness, lightness, colloquial features, journalistic style of writing; (4) understanding the Internet text by its multifaceted paradigm, which is characterized by such predictors: paradigmatic, space, being updated, its stimulating, dialogic content, comfort characteristics of perceiving, frivolousness.


Download data is not yet available.


Agrawal, P.K. (2020). Psychological Model of Phonosemantics. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 49, 453–474.

Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2005). The social net: Understanding human behavior in cyberspace. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Antheunis, M.L., Valkenburg P.M., & Peter, J. (2010). Getting acquainted through social network sites: Testing a model of online uncertainty reduction and social attraction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 100–109.

Astle, D., & Scerif, G. (2011). Interactions between attention and visual short-term memory (VSTM): What can be learnt from individual and developmental differences? Neuropsychologia, 49, 1435–1445.

Barnes, S.B. (2009). Relationship networking: Society and education. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(3), 735–742.

Baym, N.K. (2010). Personal connections in the digital age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Boyd, D. (2007). Why youth V social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, Identity, and Digital Media (pp. 119–142). Cambridge: MIT Press.

COVID-19: Antykryzovyi zakon opryliudneno [COVID-19: Anti-crisis Law was Published] (2020). Voice of Ukraine, April 2. URL: oficiyniy_tekst.html [in Ukrainian].

Derks, D., Bos, A.E., & Grumbkow, J. (2007). Emoticons and social interaction on the Internet: The importance of social context. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 842–849.

Gonzales, A.L., & Hancock J.T (2008). Identity shift in computer-mediated environments. Media Psychology, 11, 167–185.

Hall, J.A., Park, N., Song, H., & Cody, M.J. (2010). Strategic misrepresentation in online dating: The effects of gender, self-monitoring, and personality traits. Journal of Social and Personal Relations, 27(1), 117–135.

Heino, R.D., Ellison, N.B., & Gibbs, J.L. (2010). Relationshopping: Investigating the market metaphor in online dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(4), 427–447.

Ishkhanyan, B., Boye, K., & Mogensen, J. (2019). The Meeting Point: Where Language Production and Working Memory Share Resources. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48, 61–79.

Key-DeLyria, S.E., Bodner, T., & Altmann, L.J.P. (2019). Rapid Serial Visual Presentation Interacts with Ambiguity During Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48, 665–682.

Kim, J., & Dindia, K. (2011). Online self-disclosure: A review of research. In K.B. Wright & L.M. Webb (Eds.), Computer-mediated Communication in Personal Relationships (pp. 156–180). New York: Peter Lang.

Kolorystychnyi test vidnoshen A. Etkinda (2015). [The Color Test of Relations (Proposed by A. Etkind)]. URL:колірний-тест-відносин [in Ukrainian].

Lawson, H.M., & Leck, K. (2006). Dynamics of Internet dating. Social Science Computer Review, 24(2), 189–208.

Leontiev, D. (2018). Test Smyslozhiznennye orientacii [Life-Sense Orientation Test]. URL: [in Russian].

Metodyka diahnostyky mizhosobystisnykh stosunkiv T. Liri (2018). [The Questionnaire of Diagnostics of Interpersonal Relationships] URL: [in Ukrainian].

Nabochuk, O. (2020). Opytuvalnyk vyznachennia tsilei mizhosobystisnoho spilkuvannia v Internet-prostori [The Questionnaire to Determine the Goals of Interpersonal Communication in the Internet Space]. Rivne: Rivne State University of the Humanities [in Ukrainian].

Nowak, K., Watt, J.H., & Walther, J.B. (2009). Computer mediated teamwork and the efficiency framework: Exploring the influence of synchrony and cues on media satisfaction and outcome success. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 1108–1119.

Osnovni ekolohichni problemy Ukrainy (2014). [The main environmental problems of Ukraine]. URL:

Pimperton, H., & Nation, K. (2010). Suppressing irrelevant information from working memory: Evidence for domain-specific deficits in poor comprehenders. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(4), 380–391.

Rains, S.A., & Scott, C.R. (2007). To identify or not to identify: A theoretical model of receiver responses to anonymous communication. Communication Theory, 17(1), 61–91.

Ramirez, A.Jr., & Wang, Z. (2008). When online meets offline: An expectancy violation theory perspective on modality switching. Journal of Communication, 58(1), 20–39.

Rezaei, A., & Mousanezhad Jeddi, E. (2020). The Contributions of Attentional Control Components, Phonological Awareness, and Working Memory to Reading Ability. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 49, 31–40.

Serkin, V.P. (2016). Metodika lichnostnyh konstruktov Dzhona Kejli [The questionnaire of personal constructs by J. Kelly] In Psihosemantika – Psychosemantics (pp. 160-162). Moscow: Izdatelstvo Jurajt [in Russian].

Serkin, V.P. (2016). Standartnyj semanticheskij differencial [Standard semantic differential]. In Psihosemantika – Psychosemantics (pp. 178-183). Moscow: Izdatelstvo Jurajt [in Russian].

Shkuratova, I.P. (2019). Metodyka vyznachennia motyviv bezposerednoho i oposeredkovanoho mizhosobystisnoho spilkuvannia [The Questionnaire: Motives of Direct and Indirect Interpersonal Communication]. URL: [in Ukrainian].

Stephens, K.K., & Rains, S.A. (2011). Information and communication technology sequences and message repetition in interpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 38(1), 101–122.

Systema osvity v Ukraini (2015). [The System of Education in Ukraine]. URL:

Walther, J.B. et al. (2011). The effect of feedback on identity shift in computer mediated communication. Media Psychology, 14, 11-26.

Wright, K.B., & Webb, L.M. (2011). Computer-mediated Communication in Personal Relationships. New York: Peter Lang.

Zdorovyi sposib zhyttia: osnovy ta pryntsypy (2016). [Healthy lifestyle: Fundamentals and Principles]. URL:

Abstract views: 164
PDF Downloads: 80
How to Cite
Maksymenko, S., Nemesh, O., Maksymenko, K., & Nabochuk, A. (2020). Psychological Peculiarities of Understanding by Students Internet Texts. PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, 28(1), 187-213.