Understanding the Political Frames of the Opioid Crisis: A Content Analysis of U.S. Senators' Tweets.

The opioid epidemic in the United States is a public health emergency that has triggered calls to action for policy reforms. However, variations exist between political parties and policymakers on how this issue is communicated to the public. With the substantial growth in the use of social media by policymakers as a tool for disseminating policy-related information affecting their constituents, examining their communication strategies on public health emergency issues is imperative. To better understand how U.S. Senate members use Twitter (now known as X) to communicate opioid-related issues, we conducted a quantitative content analysis of their opioid-related tweets (N = 697) from January 1 to August 25 2022. Findings reveal a significant political divide regarding how senators characterize the opioid crisis, influencing user engagement on Twitter. Guided by the moral foundation theory, the results suggest that Democratic senators were more likely to employ care/harm or fairness/cheating moral foundations, relative to Republican senators, who used more loyalty/betrayal or authority/subversion. Additionally, Democratic senators framed the opioid crisis as a health or policy issue, relative to Republican senators' immigration/border frame. For inclusion of information sources, Democratic senators included significantly more health sources compared to Republican senators' use of media or law enforcement sources. Issue frame and source type significantly influenced user engagement in the form of likes and retweets. These findings provide both practical and theoretical implications.

Effects of Character Accent on Perceived Similarity, Transportation, and Narrative Persuasion.

Guided by narrative transportation theory and the social identity approach, this study examined the effects of character accent on perceived similarity, transportation, and narrative persuasion. Cigarette smokers from Kentucky (N = 492) listened to a first-person narrative about smoking-induced lung cancer. The character spoke either with a Southern American English (SAE; ingroup) or a General American English (GAE; outgroup) accent. Opposite to predictions, the GAE-accented character was perceived as more similar overall, engendered greater transportation, elevated lung cancer risk perceptions, and promoted higher intentions to quit smoking than the SAE-accented character. Consistent with predictions, the effects of character accent on risk perceptions and intentions to quit were mediated by perceived similarity and transportation. Taken together, these findings indicate that narrative character accent is a potent cue to similarity judgments, but that actual linguistic similarity is not isomorphic with perceived overall similarity. Theoretical and practical implications for narrative persuasion are discussed.