Congruent or Conflicted? The Effects of Prevalence and Valence Cues in Online Comments on Perceived Descriptive Norms Regarding e-Cigarette Use.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Fangcao Lu
{"title":"Congruent or Conflicted? The Effects of Prevalence and Valence Cues in Online Comments on Perceived Descriptive Norms Regarding e-Cigarette Use.","authors":"Fangcao Lu","doi":"10.1080/10410236.2025.2549082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Previous studies have investigated how the valence of comments - whether they support or oppose the reported issue - and the prevalence cue in comments - whether others engage in the reported behavior or not - affect norm perception among those who are exposed to online news with comments. The present study advances this research by testing the combined effects of prevalence and valence cues on readers' perceived descriptive norms through the lens of the theory of evolutionary norm formation and the exemplification theory. The e-cigarette use in Hong Kong was chosen as the context due to its controversy. A 2 (Prevalence cue: high e-cigarette-use norm vs. low e-cigarette-use norm) × 2 (Valence cue: pro-e-cigarette vs. anti-e-cigarette) between-subjects experiment (<i>N</i> = 955) was conducted. Results indicated that comments suggesting a high prevalence of e-cigarette use were perceived as unrepresentative of the public, rendering the pro- or anti-e-cigarette valence of the comments irrelevant for inferring descriptive norms.</p>","PeriodicalId":12889,"journal":{"name":"Health Communication","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2025.2549082","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Previous studies have investigated how the valence of comments - whether they support or oppose the reported issue - and the prevalence cue in comments - whether others engage in the reported behavior or not - affect norm perception among those who are exposed to online news with comments. The present study advances this research by testing the combined effects of prevalence and valence cues on readers' perceived descriptive norms through the lens of the theory of evolutionary norm formation and the exemplification theory. The e-cigarette use in Hong Kong was chosen as the context due to its controversy. A 2 (Prevalence cue: high e-cigarette-use norm vs. low e-cigarette-use norm) × 2 (Valence cue: pro-e-cigarette vs. anti-e-cigarette) between-subjects experiment (N = 955) was conducted. Results indicated that comments suggesting a high prevalence of e-cigarette use were perceived as unrepresentative of the public, rendering the pro- or anti-e-cigarette valence of the comments irrelevant for inferring descriptive norms.

一致还是冲突?在线评论中流行度和价值线索对电子烟使用的感知描述性规范的影响。
先前的研究已经调查了评论的效价——他们是否支持或反对报道的问题——以及评论中的流行线索——其他人是否参与报道的行为——如何影响那些接触到带有评论的在线新闻的人的规范感知。本研究以演化规范形成理论和例证理论为视角,考察了流行性线索和效价线索对读者描述性规范感知的综合影响。由于电子烟在香港的使用引起了争议,因此选择了电子烟作为背景。采用2(流行度线索:高电子烟使用规范vs低电子烟使用规范)× 2(效价线索:亲电子烟vs反电子烟)受试者间实验(N = 955)。结果表明,表明电子烟使用高度流行的评论被认为不具有公众代表性,使得评论的支持或反对电子烟的价值与推断描述性规范无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
10.30%
发文量
184
期刊介绍: As an outlet for scholarly intercourse between medical and social sciences, this noteworthy journal seeks to improve practical communication between caregivers and patients and between institutions and the public. Outstanding editorial board members and contributors from both medical and social science arenas collaborate to meet the challenges inherent in this goal. Although most inclusions are data-based, the journal also publishes pedagogical, methodological, theoretical, and applied articles using both quantitative or qualitative methods.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信