Moralization of E-cigarette Use and Regulation: A Mixed-Method Computational Analysis of Opinion Polarization

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.