Moralization of E-cigarette Use and Regulation: A Mixed-Method Computational Analysis of Opinion Polarization.
Moralization of E-cigarette Use and Regulation: A Mixed-Method Computational Analysis of Opinion Polarization.
复制标题
电子烟使用和监管的道德化：意见极化的混合方法计算分析。
DOI：
10.1080/10410236.2022.2027640
复制
发表时间：
2023
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
McLaughlin,MargaretL
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wang,Yunwen;Xu,YusiAveva;Wu,Jiaxi;Kim,HyeMin;Fetterman,JessicaL;Hong,Traci;McLaughlin,MargaretL
电子烟的使用，或称电子烟，正在经历一个道德化的过程，在这个过程中，关于电子烟的问题从道德中立演变为具有明显的道德影响。利用道德基础理论，本研究比较了电子烟使用和监管两极分化观点背后的道德叙事。我们通过对26个支持蒸发和19个反对蒸发的Facebook页面的时间序列数据和分类、主题建模和卡方测试(N=2,669)进行Chow测试，整合了计算和人类策略。观察期(2019年8月1日至2020年3月5日)包括“电子烟或蒸发产品使用相关肺损伤”(EVALI)的爆发、死亡和随后的立法。结果显示，支持电子烟的帖子比反对电子烟的帖子更有可能提到公平/作弊和权威/颠覆，涉及到“电子烟与大型烟草”竞争的阴谋信念，而反电子烟的帖子更有可能提到神圣/堕落。支持蒸发和反对蒸发的帖子在提到关心/伤害或忠诚/背叛的可能性方面没有显著差异。然而，根据主题建模结果，在赞成和反对蒸发的叙述中，道德基础的使用有所不同，关爱/伤害和忠诚/背叛的含义取决于帖子作者的群体从属关系。卫生干预可以针对不同的道德价值观定制具有说服力的信息，并揭穿有关公共卫生政策的错误信息，以减轻电子烟的流行。文中还讨论了理论意义。
E-cigarette use, or vaping, is undergoing a process of moralization in which issues about vaping evolve from being morally neutral to having discernible moral implications. Using Moral Foundations Theory, this study compared the moral narratives underlying polarized views about e-cigarette use and regulation. We integrated computational and human strategies by conducting the Chow test on the time series data and classification, topic modeling, and Chi-square tests on posts (N= 2,669) from 26 pro-vaping and 19 anti-vaping Facebook Pages. The observation period (August 1, 2019 to March 5, 2020) encompassed the outbreak of “e-cigarette or vaping product use associated lung injury” (EVALI), deaths and subsequent legislation. Results revealed that pro-vaping posts were more likely than anti-vaping posts to mention Fairness/cheating and Authority/subversion, involving a conspiracy belief in an “e-cigarettes vs. Big Tobacco” rivalry, while anti-vaping posts were more likely to mention Sanctity/degradation. There were no significant differences between pro-vaping and anti-vaping posts in the likelihood of mentioning Care/harm or Loyalty/betrayal. Nevertheless, according to the topic modeling results, the use of moral foundations varied between pro-vaping and anti-vaping narratives, with the meanings of Care/harm and Loyalty/betrayal dependent on the post author’s group affiliation. Health interventions can tailor persuasive messages to different moral values and debunk misinformation about public health policies to mitigate the vaping epidemic. Theoretical implications are also discussed.