Effects of a Social Media Intervention on Vaping Intentions: Randomized Dose-Response Experiment.

BACKGROUND: e-Cigarette use, especially by young adults, is at unacceptably high levels and represents a public health risk factor. Digital media are increasingly being used to deliver antivaping campaigns, but little is known about their effectiveness or the dose-response effects of content delivery. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to evaluate (1) the effectiveness of a 60-day antivaping social media intervention in changing vaping use intentions and beliefs related to the stimulus content and (2) the dose-response effects of varying levels of exposure to the intervention on vaping outcomes, including anti-industry beliefs, vaping intentions, and other attitudes and beliefs related to vaping. METHODS: Participants were adults aged 18 to 24 years in the United States. They were recruited into the study through Facebook (Meta Platforms) and Instagram (Meta Platforms), completed a baseline survey, and then randomized to 1 of the 5 conditions: 0 (control), 4, 8, 16, and 32 exposures over a 15-day period between each survey wave. Follow-up data were collected 30 and 60 days after randomization. We conducted stratified analyses of the full sample and in subsamples defined by the baseline vaping status (never, former, and current). Stimulus was delivered through Facebook and Instagram in four 15-second social media videos focused on anti-industry beliefs about vaping. The main outcome measures reported in this study were self-reported exposure to social media intervention content, attitudes and beliefs about vaping, and vaping intentions. We estimated a series of multivariate linear regressions in Stata 17 (StataCorp). To capture the dose-response effect, we assigned each study arm a numerical value corresponding to the number of advertisements (exposures) delivered to participants in each arm and used this number as our focal independent variable. In each model, the predictor was the treatment arm to which each participant was assigned. RESULTS: The baseline sample consisted of 1491 participants, and the final analysis sample consisted of 57.28% (854/1491) of the participants retained at the 60-day follow-up. We compared the retained participants with those lost to follow-up and found no statistically significant differences across demographic variables. We found a significant effect of the social media treatment on vaping intentions (ß=-0.138, 95% CI -0.266 to -0.010; P=.04) and anti-industry beliefs (ß=-0.122, 95% CI 0.008-0.237; P=.04) targeted by the intervention content among current vapers but not among the full sample or other strata. We found no significant effects of self-reported exposure to the stimulus. CONCLUSIONS: Social media interventions are a promising approach to preventing vaping among young adults. More research is needed on how to optimize the dosage of such interventions and the extent to which long-term exposure may affect vaping use over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04867668; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04867668.

Claims of wrongdoing by outgroup members heighten children's ingroup biases.

Little is known about how group bias may impact children's acceptance of unsubstantiated claims. Most children view cheating as unfair. However, in competitive situations, when ambiguity surrounds the potential intention to cheat, group affiliation may lead children to support claims of cheating based solely on the team affiliation of the claimant, even when those claims are not clearly substantiated. Therefore, it may be particularly important to consider the role ingroup bias may play in children's accusations of cheating in a competitive intergroup context. The current study investigated 4-10 year old children's (N = 137, MAge = 6.71 years, SDAge = 1.49; 47 % female) evaluations of ambiguous acts and unverified claims about those acts in a competitive, intergroup context. Results showed that children initially viewed an ambiguous act similarly, regardless of team affiliation, but demonstrated increasing ingroup biases after claims of wrongdoing were introduced. Implications for how unsubstantiated claims may impact intergroup interactions more broadly will be discussed.

Testing the effectiveness of the Developing Inclusive Youth program: A multisite randomized control trial.

The Developing Inclusive Youth program is a classroom-based, individually administered video tool that depicts peer-based social and racial exclusion, combined with teacher-led discussions. A multisite randomized control trial was implemented with 983 participants (502 females; 58.5% White, 41.5% Ethnic/racial minority; Mage  = 9.64 years) in 48 third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade classrooms across six schools. Children in the program were more likely to view interracial and same-race peer exclusion as wrong, associate positive traits with peers of different racial, ethnic, and gender backgrounds, and report play with peers from diverse backgrounds than were children in the control group. Many approaches are necessary to achieve antiracism in schools. This intervention is one component of this goal for developmental science.

To Punish or Exclude? Children's Responses to Unfair and Fair Advantages Created in Competitive Contexts.

To determine whether children will exclude or punish a peer who creates an unfair advantage in an intergroup team context, four-to ten-year-old participants (N = 120, Mage = 6.87) were assigned a team membership and evaluated unintentional and intentional unfair advantages created by a character. Children were more likely to endorse punishment and exclusion responses when reasoning about an opponent than a teammate. This difference between groups was not observed when in-group and out-group members reasoned about punishing a character who intentionally created an unfair advantage. Older children were less likely to endorse exclusion than younger participants. Further, older children and in-group members utilized punishment more frequently than exclusion. Taken together this demonstrates that the group identity and the age of the child influences the ways in which children endorse responses to transgressions. These findings increase our understanding regarding children's conceptions of fairness responses to transgressions in intergroup contexts.

Children's group identity is related to their assessment of fair and unfair advantages.

Unfair advantages can be created either intentionally (e.g., cheating) or unintentionally (e.g., unintended benefit). Little is known regarding how children evaluate different types of advantages in situations where group identity and group membership are made salient. To investigate how children's group identity influences their evaluations and attribution of intentions in intergroup contexts, children were presented with three hypothetical advantages (unintentionally unfair, intentionally unfair, and fair) in a competitive context created by either an in-group member or an out-group member. Children (N = 120) were 4-6 years of age (n = 59; Mage = 5.29 years) and 7-10 years of age (n = 61; Mage = 8.34 years), including 64 girls and 56 boys. Participants were 67% European American, 18% African American, 11% Asian American, and 4% Hispanic. All participants were assigned to one of two teams in a contest in order to create an in-group/out-group manipulation prior to their evaluation of the actions. Out-group members viewed unintentional unfair and fair advantages as less acceptable than in-group members, but in-group and out-group members were equally negative in their assessment of an intentional transgression. When reasoning about unintentional and intentional unfair advantages, older children referenced the intentions of the advantage creator to justify their decisions more than younger children, whereas younger children reasoned about the impact of the behavior on their team more than older children. These novel findings shed light on developmental and social factors influencing children's understanding of fairness and intentionality in everyday contexts.

Unintentional and intentional falsehoods: The role of morally relevant theory of mind.

This study investigated how theory of mind (ToM) competence is related to children's ability to differentiate between intentional and unintentional false statements regarding claims to resources. Participants (4-10 years old; N = 122) heard about individuals who had different access to knowledge about resource ownership when making resource claims, and they were asked to make an evaluation, attribute intentions, assign punishment, and predict the teacher's assigned punishment. Two measures of ToM were assessed: a prototypic false belief ToM assessment and a contextually embedded, morally relevant false belief theory of mind (MoToM) assessment. Children's ToM competence reliably predicted more favorable evaluations of the individual who made the unintentional false claim than of the one who did so intentionally. Furthermore, the contextually embedded MoToM assessment predicted children's responses for all of the assessments above and beyond age and prototypic ToM competence. The findings indicate that children's contextually embedded MoToM competence bears on their moral assessments of the intentions of transgressors and underscores the importance of ToM in the ability to discriminate intentional and unintentional false statements.

Who needs innate ability to succeed in math and literacy? Academic-domain-specific theories of intelligence about peers versus adults.

Individuals' implicit theories of intelligence exist on a spectrum, from believing intelligence is fixed and unchangeable, to believing it is malleable and can be improved with effort. A belief in malleable intelligence leads to adaptive responses to challenge and higher achievement. However, surprisingly little is known about the development of academic-domain-specific theories of intelligence (i.e., math vs. reading and writing). The authors examined this in a cross-section of students from 1st grade to college (N = 523). They also examined whether students hold different beliefs about the role of fixed ability in adult jobs versus their own grade. The authors' adult-specific beliefs hypothesis states that when children learn societally held beliefs from adults, they first apply these beliefs specifically to adults and later to students their own age. Consistent with this, even the youngest students (1st and 2nd graders) believed that success in an adult job requires more fixed ability in math than reading and writing. However, when asked about students in their own grade, only high school and college students reported that math involves more fixed ability than reading and writing. High school and college students' math-specific theories of intelligence were related to their motivation and achievement in math, controlling for reading and writing-specific theories. Reading and writing-specific theories did not predict reading and writing-specific motivations or achievement, perhaps because students perceive reading and writing as less challenging than math. In summary, academic-domain-specific theories of intelligence develop early but may not become self-relevant until adolescence, and math-specific beliefs may be especially important targets for intervention. (PsycINFO Database Record