employee
St Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
UDC 338
Introduction. Ensuring the economic security of the population highlights the need of understanding various types of threats to citizens’ financial resources. During the period of active digitalisation of social relations, there has been a significant increase in fraudulent activities using social engineering methods, raising the importance of scientific knowledge of rational consumer behaviour. Its components – the cognitive characteristics of an economic agent, their critical thinking skills and possession of specialised (financial) knowledge – are assessed as factors in counteracting manipulation and involvement in fraudulent schemes. Methods. The research was based on general scientific methods, including analysis and synthesis of information on contemporary theories and concepts of rational behaviour, as well as generalisation applied for the purpose of systematising scientific knowledge on the rational behaviour of an economic agent. Results. The author describes three factors reducing the level of critical thinking among economic agents and increasing the likelihood of them making irrational decisions (fundamental cognitive limitations, lack of specialised knowledge, and the quality of the digital environment). The mechanisms behind the manipulation of these factors in digital fraud are revealed. These findings made it possible to identify vulnerabilities and risks in different age groups and to formulate prevention strategies.
irrational behaviour, financial fraud, cognitive vulnerability, financial literacy, digital crime
1. Dukhnovsky, Sergey V., and Kirill V. Zlokazov. 2024. “Informacionno-psikhologicheskaya uyazvimost' sotrudnikov organov vnutrennikh del raznym urovnem ustojchivosti i utomlennosti” [“Informational and psychological vulnerability of internal affairs officers with different levels of resilience and fatigue”] (In Russ.). Psikhologiya i pravo [Psychology and Law] 14, no. 4 (December):50–67. https://doi.org/10.17759/psylaw.2024140404
2. Zlokazova, Yuliya V. 2019. “Finansovaya gramotnost' kak uslovie racional'nogo potrebitel'skogo povedeniya” [“Financial Literacy as a Condition for Rational Consumer Behavior”] (In Rus.). Municipalitet: ehkonomika i upravlenie [Municipalities: Economics and Management] 27, no. 2 (June):105–13.
3. Ivanova, Svetlana V., and Elena V. Menzul, and Alexey V. Azarkhin. 2025. “Kognitivnye iskazheniya potrebitel'skogo povedeniya v cifrovoj ehkonomike” [“Cognitive Distortions of Consumer Behavior in the Digital Economy”] (In Rus.). Diskussiya [Discussion] 141, no. 8 (August):127–133. https://doi.org/10.46320/2077-7639-2025-8- 141-127-133
4. Yaroslavtseva, Irina V., and Sofya A. Dorokhina. 2016. “Kriticheskoe myshlenie pozhilykh lyudej – zhertv moshennicheskikh dejstvij: teoreticheskij i prikladnoj aspekty issledovaniya” [“Critical Thinking of Elderly People Who Are Victims of Fraud: Theoretical and Applied Aspects of Research”] (In Russ.) Izvestiya Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Psikhologiya [Izvestiya of Irkutsk State University. Series: Psychology] 15 (March):60–71.
5. Bronstein, Michael V. [et al.]. 2020. “Belief in fake news, responsiveness to cognitive conflict, and analytic reasoning engagement.” Thinking and Reasoning 27, 6 (November):1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1847190
6. Casey, Betty J., and Sarah Getz, Adriana Galvan. 2008. “The adolescent brain.” Developmental Review 28, no. 1 (March):62–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.003
7. Fiske, Susan T., and Amy J. C. Cuddy, Peter Glick. 2007. “Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11, no 2 (March):77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
8. Galvan, Adriana. 2013. “The teenage brain: Sensitivity to rewards.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 22, no. 2 (Apri):88–93. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44318641
9. Hart, Oliver D. 1995. Firms, Contracts, and Financial Structure 228. New York : Oxford University Press.
10. Kahne, Joseph, and Benjamin Bowyer. 2017. “Educating for Democracy in a Partisan Age: Confronting the Challenges of Motivated Reasoning and Misinformation.” American Educational Research Journal 54, no. 1 (November): 3–34. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216679817
11. Laibson, David. 1997. “Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112, no. 2 (February):443–77.
12. Luguri, Jamie L., and Lior J. Strahilevitz. 2021. “Shining a Light on Dark Patterns.” Journal of Legal Analysis 13, no. 1 (March):43–109. https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/laaa006
13. Mitchell, Olivia, and Annamaria Lusardi. 2011. “Financial literacy around the world: an overview.” Journal of Pension Economics and Finance 10, no. 4 (February):497–508. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1810551
14. Nisbett, Richard E., and Timothy D. Wilson. 1977 “The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35, no. 4 (April):250–6. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022- 3514.35.4.250
15. Samanez-Larkin, Gregory R., and Brian Knutson. 2015. “Decision making in the ageing brain: changes in affective and motivational circuits.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 16, no. 5 (April):278–289. https://doi.org/10.1038 /nrn3917
16. Simon, Herbert A. 1955. “A behavioral model of rational choice.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 69, no. 1 (February):99–118.
17. Thaler, Richard H., and Cass R. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness 293. New Haven, London : Yale University Press.
18. Turner, Gary R., and R. Nathan Spreng. 2015. “Prefrontal engagement and reduced default network suppression co-occur and are dynamically coupled in older adults: the default-executive coupling hypothesis of aging.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 27, no. 12 (December):2462–2476. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00869
19. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 4157, no. 185 (September):1124–31. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
