COGNITION AND AFFECT IN DECISION-MAKING ABOUT PESTICIDES: A NETNOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

Abstract

This study investigates the cognitive-affective processes underlying risk perception and decision-making regarding pesticides in digital environments. A two-layer netnography was employed: (1) content analysis of 16 posts and 2 reels (potential reach of 4,617,971 followers), totaling 2,803 comments (451 valid units); and (2) prototypical lexical analysis (IRaMuTeQ) of the most engaged publications. Results reveal that the debate is organized into six thematic axes (risk perception, information asymmetry, budgetary restriction, access inequality, institutional skepticism, and cognitive-affective mechanisms) and two grammars of sense: aspirational (focused on health and naturalness) and defensive (focused on safety and vigilance). It was identified that judgment heuristics and biases, such as the “natural vs. chemical” framing, availability, affect (dread/disgust), confirmation, and ambiguity aversion, explain discursive polarization and the gap between stated preference and actual consumer choice. Findings indicate that the use of verifiable signals (certifications and traceability) and exposure limit comparisons shift processing from the affective to the analytical pole, although price and access barriers reintroduce pragmatic concessions. It is concluded that interventions based on choice architecture, including trust nudges, repetition of verified signals, and the strategic use of influencers, can mitigate skepticism and favor lower-exposure behaviors. The study acknowledges lexical limitations and suggests multimodal analyses and longitudinal panels as future steps for understanding decision-making dynamics in public health.