Well-known phenomenon, new setting: Digital stress in times of the COVID-19 pandemic

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Bibliographische Infos

Cover der Ausgabe: SCM Studies in Communication and Media Jahrgang 10 (2021), Heft 4
Open Access Vollzugriff

SCM Studies in Communication and Media

Jahrgang 10 (2021), Heft 4

Autor:innen:
Verlag
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Copyrightjahr
2022
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
ISSN-Print
2192-4007

Kapitelinformationen

Open Access Vollzugriff

Jahrgang 10 (2021), Heft 4

Well-known phenomenon, new setting: Digital stress in times of the COVID-19 pandemic

Autor:innen:
ISSN-Print
2192-4007
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
Kapitelvorschau:

Literaturverzeichnis

  1. Altheide, D. L. (2007). The mass media and terrorism. Discourse and Communication, 1(3), 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307079207 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  2. Backes, T., Jaschensky, W., Langhans, K., Munzinger, H., Witzenberger, B., & Wormer, V. (2016). Timeline der Panik. Ein Täter, ein Tatort – und eine Stadt in Angst: Wie aus dem Münchner Amoklauf ein Terroranschlag mit 67 Zielen wurde. Eine Rekonstruktion [Timeline of panic. One perpetrator, one crime scene – and a city in fear: How the Munich rampage became a terrorist attack with 67 targets. A reconstruction]. Süddeutsche Zeitung. https://gfx.sueddeutsche.de/apps/57eba578910a46f716ca829d/www/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  3. Badische Zeitung. (2017, 25. Februar). Amokfahrt. Mann fährt in der Heidelberger Innenstadt Fußgänger an [Run amok. Man drives at pedestrian in Heidelberg city center]. Badische Zeitung. https://www.badische-zeitung.de/autofahrer-faehrt-in-der-heidel- berger-innenstadt-fussgaenger-an--133942874.html Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  4. Badr, H. (2017). Framing von Terrorismus im Nahostkonflikt. Eine Analyse deutscher und ägyptischer Printmedien [Framing terrorism in the Middle East Conflict. An analysis of German and Egyptian print media]. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17393-7 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  5. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265–299. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  6. BBC Editorial Guidelines. (2021). Guidelines. Section 11: War, terror and emergencies. https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/war-terror-emergencies/guidelines Beck, U. (2007). Weltrisikogesellschaft. Auf der Suche nach der verlorenen Sicherheit. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  7. [World Risk Society. In search of lost security]. Suhrkamp. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  8. Beermann, T. (2004). Der Begriff „Terrorismus“ in deutschen Printmedien. Eine empirische Studie. [The term “terrorism” in German print media. An empirical study]. LIT. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  9. Berber, B. (2017, 23. August). Wir Terrorhelfer [We terror aides]. Die Zeit. https://www.zeit.de/2017/35/journalismus-terrorismus-anschlaege-medien-bilder-umgang Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  10. Berger, L., & Weber, F. (2008). Terrorismus [Terrorism]. Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Thüringen. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  11. Braselmann, S., & Ahrens, J. (2017). Vermittlungskulturen des Amoklaufs. Zur medialen Präsenz spektakulärer Gewalt [Mediating cultures of amok run. On the media presence of spectacular violence]. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-16602-1 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  12. Broersma, M., & Graham, T. (2013). Twitter as a news source: How Dutch and British newspapers used tweets in their news coverage, 2007-2011. Journalism Practice, 7(4), 446–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.802481 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  13. Centrum für Strategie und Höhere Führung. (2018, 14. Februar). Sicherheitsreport 2018. Deutsche haben Angst vor Terrorismus und sorgen sich um den Weltfrieden [Security Report 2018. Germans are afraid of terrorism and worried about world peace]. https://www.presseportal.de/pm/115329/3866830 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  14. Daase, C. (20413). Terrorismus [Terrorism]. In B. Enzmann (Hrsg.), Handbuch Politische Gewalt. Formen – Ursachen – Legitimation – Begrenzung (S. 336–346). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-18958-1 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  15. Deutscher Presserat. (2017). Publizistische Grundsätze. Pressekodex. Richtlinien für die publizistische Arbeit nach den Empfehlungen des Deutschen Presserats [Journalistic principles. Press code. Guidelines for journalistic work in accordance with the recommendations of the German Press Council]. Trägerverein des Deutschen Presserats. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  16. Deutsche Welle. (2020, 24. Februar). Auto rast bei Rosenmontagsumzug in Hessen in Menschenmenge [Car crashes into crowd at Shrove Monday parade in Hesse]. Deutsche Welle. https://www.dw.com/de/auto-rast-bei-rosenmontagsumzug-in-hessen- in-menschenmenge/a-52509770 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  17. Donsbach, W. (1987). Journalismusforschung in der Bundesrepublik: Offene Fragen trotz „Forschungsboom“ [Journalism research in the Federal Republic: Open questions despite “research boom”]. In J. Wilke (Hrsg.), Zwischenbilanz der Journalistenausbildung (S. 105–142). Ölschläger. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93131-9_5 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  18. Dresing, T., & Pehl, T. (2013). Praxisbuch Transkription. Regelsysteme, Software und praktische Anleitungen für qualitative ForscherInnen [Transcription Practice Book. Rule systems, software and practical instructions for qualitative researchers]. Dr. dresing & pehl GmbH. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  19. Esser, F. (1998). Editorial structures and work principles in British and German newsrooms. European Journal of Communication, 13(3), 375–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323198013003004 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  20. Europäische Kommission. (2021). Auf Terroranschläge reagieren [Responding to terrorist attacks]. https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/networks/radicalisation_aware-ness_network/ran-news/auf-terroranschlage-reagieren_en Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  21. Europäisches Parlament. (2020). Terrorismus in der EU: Anschläge, Todesopfer, Festnahmen im Jahr 2019 [Terrorism in the EU: attacks, fatalities, arrests in 2019]. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/de/headlines/security/20180703STO07125/terrorismte- in-der-eu-anschlage-todesopfer-festnahmen Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  22. Europol. (2018). European Union terrorism situation and trend report 2018. European Union Agency of Law Enforcement Cooperation. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  23. Frindte, W., & Haußecker, N. (2010). Inszenierter Terrorismus. Mediale Konstruktionen und individuelle Interpretationen [Staged terrorism. Media constructions and individual interpretations]. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 531-92579-0 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  24. Gerhards, J., Schäfer, M. S., Al-Jabiri, I., & Seifert, J. (2011). Terrorismus im Fernsehen. Formate, Inhalte und Emotionen in westlichen und arabischen Sendern [Terrorism on television. Formats, content and emotions in Western and Arabic broadcasters]. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-94053-3 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  25. Glaab, S. (2007). Medien und Terrorismus – eine Einführung [Media and terrorism – An Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  26. introduction]. In S. Glaab (Hrsg.), Medien und Terrorismus – auf den Spuren einer symbiotischen Beziehung (S. 11–16). Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  27. Global Terrorism Index. (2018). What the Global Terrorism Index results mean for Europe. Institute for Economics & Politics. http://visionofhumanity.org/news/global-terrorism-index-results-mean-europe/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  28. Goertz, S. (2018). Der neue Terrorismus. Neue Akteure, neue Strategien, neue Taktiken und neue Mittel [The new terrorism. New actors, new strategies, new tactics, and new means]. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-18814-6?nosfx=y Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  29. Hegemann, H., & Kahl, M. (2018). Terrorismus und Terrorismusbekämpfung. Eine Einführung [Terrorism and counterterrorism. An introduction]. Springer VS. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-658-16086-9 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  30. Heinke, E. M., & Kron, T. (2013). Terrorismus [Terrorism]. In S. Mau & N. M. Schöneck (Hrsg.), Handwörterbuch zur Gesellschaft Deutschlands (S. 870–880). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-18929-1 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  31. Hirschmann, K. (2001). Terrorismus in neuen Dimensionen. Hintergründe und Schlussfolgerungen [Terrorism in new dimensions. Background and conclusions]. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, B 51, 7–15. https://www.bpb.de/apuz/25824/terrorismus-in-neuen- dimensionen Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  32. Hömberg, W., & Klenk, C. (2010). Individualethische Ansätze [Individual ethical approaches]. In C. Schicha & C. Brosda (Hrsg.), Handbuch Medienethik (S. 41–52). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92248-5_3 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  33. Hoffman, B. (2002). Terrorismus – Der unerklärte Krieg. Neue Gefahren politischer Gewalt [Terrorism – The undeclared war. New dangers of political violence]. Fischer Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  34. Hoffman, B. (2006). Inside Terrorism. Columbia University Press. https://doi. org/10.1080/17419160801891095 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  35. Holczmann, V. (2016). Der Islamische Staat in den Medien – Ein Vergleich zwischen Kronen Zeitung, Der Standard und Falter [The Islamic State in the media – A comparison between Kronen Zeitung, Der Standard and Falter]. Universität Wien. https://doi. org/10.25365/thesis.44589 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  36. Institute for Economics & Peace. (2019). Global Terrorism Index 2019: Measuring the impact of terrorism. http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uploads/2019/11/GTI-2019web.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  37. Jugendschutz.net. (2016). Dschihadisten rekrutieren über den Messenger Telegram. [Jihadists recruit via the messenger Telegram]. https://www.bpb.de/system/files/dokument_pdf/Recherchepapier_Messenger_Telegram.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  38. Kepplinger, M. (2018). Medien und Skandale. Springer VS. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  39. Korte, B. (2016). Terrorismus in der modernen Medienlandschaft: Politische Herausforderungen und Bedarfe guter ziviler Sicherheitsforschung [Terrorism in the modern media landscape: Political challenges and needs for good civilian security research]. In F. Gabel, J. Eckert, P. Drews, & J. Hieronymus (Hrsg.), Ergebnisbericht. Zweiter Workshop des Graduierten-Netzwerks „Zivile Sicherheit“ zum Thema: „Was ist gute zivile Sicherheitsforschung“ vom 25./26. November 2016 in Stuttgart. (S. 28–31). https://www.sifo.de/files/Ergebnisbericht_2.Workshop_Graduierten-Netzwerk_Zivile%20Si- cherheit.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  40. Krüger, U. (2018). Der neue Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit und die German Angst [The new structural change of the public sphere and German Angst]. In G. Hooffacker, W. Kenntemich, & U. Kulisch (Hrsg.), Die neue Öffentlichkeit. Wie Bots, Bürger und Big Data den Journalismus verändern (S. 9–26). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-20809-7_2 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  41. Kuckartz, U. (2016). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung [Qualitative content analysis. Methods, practice, computer support]. Beltz Juventa. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21308-4_31 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  42. Lazarsfeld, P., & Merton, R. (1964[1948]). Mass communication, popular taste and organized social action. In L. Bryon (Hrsg.), The communication of ideas (S. 95–118). Cooper Square Publishers. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  43. Linder, B. (2011). Terror in der Medienberichterstattung [Terror in media coverage]. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.17192/ep2012.3.942 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  44. Lipkowski, C. (2021, 07. Juli). Würzburg. Messerstecher verletzte mehr Menschen als bekannt [Würzburg. Knifeman injured more people than known]. Süddeutsche Zeitung. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/wuerzburg-messerattacke-attentat-verletz- te-1.5344642 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  45. McCombs, M., & Reynolds, A. (2009). How the news shapes our civic agenda. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Hrsg.), Media effects. Advances in theory and research (S. 1–16). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917744895 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  46. Morin, A. (2016). Framing terror: The strategies newspapers use to frame an act as terror or crime. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(4), 986–1005. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016660720 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  47. Muth, M., & Rauch, A. (2016, 20. Juli). Anschlag in Würzburg. Was wir bisher wissen [Attack in Würzburg. What we know so far]. BR24. https://www.br.de/nachricht/wuerz- burg-terror-was-wir-wissen-100.html Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  48. Nacos, B. (2007). Mass-mediated terrorism. The central role of the media in terrorism and counterterrorism. Rowman & Littlefield. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  49. Nacos, B. (2009). Revisiting the contagion hypothesis: Terrorism, news coverage, and copycat attacks. Perspectives on Terrorism, 3(3), 3–13. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  50. Page, R. E. (2013). What we tweet about in chaos: Framing, Twitter, and the 2012 Aurora massacre. Texas Tech University. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  51. Picard, R. (1993). Media portrayals of terrorism. Function and meaning of news coverage. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  52. Iowa State University Press. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.31-0736 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  53. Preston, P. (2009). Making the news: Journalism and news cultures in Europe. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203888599 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  54. Raith, A. (2016, 27. Dezember). Vom schmalen Grat der Terrorberichterstattung [The fine line of terror reporting]. Deutschlandfunk. https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/verunsicherte-gesellschaft-teil-1-vom-schmalen-grat-der.724.de.html?dram:article_id=374937 Rauchfleisch, A., Artho, X., Metag, J., Post, S., & Schäfer, M. S. (2017). How journalists verify user-generated content during terrorist crises. Analyzing Twitter communication during the Brussels attacks. Social Media + Society, 3(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117717888 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  55. Reuter, C., Pätsch, K., & Runft, E. (2016). Terrorismus und soziale Medien – Propaganda und Gegenpropaganda [Terrorism and social media – propaganda and counterpropaganda]. In W. Prinz, J. Borchers, & M. Jarke (Hrsg.), Mensch und Computer 2016 – Tagungsband (S. 1–4). Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. https://doi.org/10.18420/ muc2016-mci-0209 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  56. Richards, B. (2004). Terrorism and public relations. Public Relations Review, 30(2), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2004.02.005 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  57. Rothenberger, L. (2012). Terrorismusberichterstattung – Diskurse, Mythen und RhetorikKämpfe [Terrorism reporting – Discourses, myths, and rhetoric battles]. Istanbul Üniversitesi Iletisim Fakültesi Dergisi, 43(2), 123–140. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  58. Rothenberger, L. (2017). Computer-mediated public relations of ethno-nationalist terrorist groups. In I. Somerville, O. Hargie, M. Taylor, & M. Toledano (Hrsg.), International public relations. Perspective from deeply divided societies (229–253). Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  59. Rothenberger, L. (2020). Terrorismus als Kommunikation. Bestandsaufnahme, Erklärungen und Herausforderungen [Terrorism as communication. Stocktaking, explanations and challenges]. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31080-6 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  60. Ruby, C. L. (2002). The definition of terrorism. Analyses of social issues and public policy, 2(1), 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2002.00021.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  61. Schäfer, M. (2018). Medienhype „Hirndoping“? Die Rolle der Journalisten in der gesellschaftlichen Debatte um Neuroenhancement [Media hype “brain doping”? The role of journalists in the social debate on neuroenhancement]. Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845288291 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  62. Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  63. Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9–20. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00326.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  64. Schmid, A. P. (2011). Introduction. In A. P. Schmid (Hrsg.), The Routledge handbook of terrorism research (S. 1–38). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203828731 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  65. Schultz, T. (2017). Nichts ist sicher. Herausforderungen in der Berichterstattung über Terrorismus [Nothing is certain. Challenges in reporting on terrorism]. In K. N. Renner, T. Schultz, & J. Wilke (Hrsg.), Journalismus zwischen Autonomie und Nutzwert (S. 99– 117). Herbert von Halem. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  66. Spiegel.de. (2016a, 23. Juli). Was ist Terror? Was ist Amok? [What is terror? What is amok?]. Der Spiegel. https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/muenchen-was-ist-ein- amoklauf-was-ist-terrorismus-a-1104416.html Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  67. Spiegel.de. (2016b, 24. Juli). Mann greift Menschen mit Machete an – eine Tote, mehrere Verletzte [Man attacks people with machete – one dead, several injured]. Der Spiegel. https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/reutlingen-macheten-angriff-offenbar-eine-tote- und-verletzte-a-1104483.html Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  68. Süddeutsche Zeitung. (2016, 27. Juli). „Le Monde“ zeigt keine Bilder von Terroristen mehr [“Le Monde” no longer shows pictures of terrorists]. Süddeutsche Zeitung. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/medien/zeitung-le-monde-zeigt-keine-bilder-von-terroristen-mehr-1.3096671 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  69. Süddeutsche Zeitung. (2018, 08. April). Anschlag in Münster. Was wir wissen – und was nicht [Attack in Münster. What we know – and what we don’t]. Süddeutsche Zeitung. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/anschlag-in-muenster-was-wir-wissen-und- was-nicht-1.3935578 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  70. Süddeutsche Zeitung. (2020, 26. Juli). Polizei: Kein Hinweis auf Anschlag bei schwerem Unfall [Police: No indication of attack in serious accident]. Süddeutsche Zeitung. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/berlin-charlottenburg-auto-menschen- gruppe-1.4979106 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  71. Theveßen, E. (2007). Die Nutzung der Medien durch Terroristen [The use of the media by terrorists]. In S. Glaab (Hrsg.), Medien und Terrorismus – auf den Spuren einer symbiotischen Beziehung (S. 59–73). Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-531-93292-7_4 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  72. United Nations. (2006). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 8 September 2006. 60/288. The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. UN General Assembly. https://undocs.org/A/RES/60/288 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  73. Vergin, J. (2017, 01. September). Je mehr Terror-Berichterstattung, desto mehr Terroranschläge? [The more terror coverage, the more terror attacks?]. Deutsche Welle. https://www.dw.com/de/je-mehr-terror-berichterstattung-desto-mehr-terroranschläge/a-40315360. Vis, F. (2013). Twitter as a reporting tool for breaking news: Journalists tweeting the 2011 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  74. UK riots. Digital Journalism, 1(1), 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2012.74 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  75. 1316 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  76. Walser, E. (2015). Twitter – eine Plattform ohne Moral? Eine Analyse der Krisenberichterstattung zu den Boston-Marathon-Bombings auf der Microblogging-Plattform [Twitter Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  77. – a platform without morals? An analysis of the crisis coverage of the Boston Marathon bombings on the microblogging platform]. Communicatio Socialis, 48(2), 176– 189. https://doi.org/10.5771/0010-3497-2015-2-176 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  78. Wanta, W., & Kalyango, Y. (2007). Terrorism and Africa: A study of agenda building. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(4), 434–450. https://doi. org/10.1093/ijpor/edm028 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  79. Weaver, D. H. (2007). Thoughts on agenda setting, framing, and priming. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 142–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00333.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  80. Weaver, R. L. (1989). The Northern Ireland broadcasting ban: Some reflections on judicial review. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 22, 1119–1160. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  81. Weimann, G. (2010). Terror on facebook, twitter, and youtube. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 16(2), 45–54. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  82. Weimann, G., & Brosius, H. B. (1991). The newsworthiness of international terrorism. Communication Research, 18(3), 333–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764208321342 Weimann, G., & Jost, J. (2015). Neuer Terrorismus und Neue Medien [New terrorism and Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  83. new media]. Zeitschrift für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik, 8(3), 369–388. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12399-015-0493-5 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  84. Weischenberg, S. (1992). Journalistik. Theorie und Praxis aktueller Medienkommunikation. Band 1: Mediensysteme, Medienethik, Medieninstitutionen [Journalism. Theory and practice of current media communication. Volume 1: Media systems, media ethics, media institutions]. Westdeutscher Verlag. https://doi.org/10.17192/ep1994.2.4721 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  85. Woods, J. (2011). Framing terror: An experimental framing effects study of the perceived threat of terrorism. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 4(2), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.10 80/17539153.2011.586205 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  86. Zeit Online. (2020, 10. Dezember). Terrorbekämpfung: Soziale Medien müssen Terrorpropaganda schnell löschen [Counter-terrorism: Social media must quickly delete terror propaganda]. Zeit Online. https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2020-12/eu-kommis- sion-terrorismus-internet-regeln Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  87. Zywietz, B. (2020). Propaganda des „Islamischen Staats“. Formen und Formate [Propaganda of the “Islamic State”. Forms and formats]. Springer VS. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-658-28751-1 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-447
  88. Ausserhofer, J., & Maireder, A. (2013). National politics on Twitter: Structures and topics of a networked public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 16(3), 291– 314. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2012.756050 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  89. Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. science, 286(5439), 509–512. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5439.509 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  90. Barberá, P., Wang, N., Bonneau, R., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J., & González-Bailón, S. (2015). The critical periphery in the growth of social protests. PloS one, 10(11), e0143611. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143611 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  91. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  92. Benkler, Y., Roberts, H., Faris, R., Solow-Niederman, A., & Etling, B. (2015). Social mobilization and the networked public sphere: Mapping the SOPA-PIPA debate. Political communication, 32(4), 594-624. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2014.986349 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  93. Bennett, W. L., & Pfetsch, B. (2018). Rethinking political communication in a time of disrupted public spheres. Journal of Communication, 68(2), 243–253. https://doi. org/10.1093/joc/jqx017 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  94. Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2012.670661 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  95. Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2013). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.1017/CBO9781139198752 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  96. Bennett, W. L., Segerberg, A., & Walker, S. (2014). Organization in the crowd:Peer production in large-scale networked protests. Information, Communication & Society, 17(2), 232–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.870379 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  97. boyd, D. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self (pp. 47–66). Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9780203876527-8 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  98. Bruns, A., & Moe, H. (2014). Structural layers of communication on Twitter. In K. Weller, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  99. A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society (Vol. 89, pp. 15–28). Peter Lang. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  100. Bruns, A., & Stieglitz, S. (2014). Metrics for understanding communication on Twitter. In Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  101. K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  102. (Vol. 89, pp. 69–82). Peter Lang. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  103. Burt, R. S. (1999). The social capital of opinion leaders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271629 9566001004 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  104. Castells, M. (2000). Toward a sociology of the network society. Contemporary sociology, 29(5), 693–698. https://doi.org/10.2307/2655234 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  105. Castells, M. (2008). The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication networks, and global governance. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311877 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  106. Castells, M. (2015). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  107. John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  108. Coleman, S. (2005). The lonely citizen: Indirect representation in an age of networks. Political communication, 22(2), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600590933197 della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2020). Social movements: An introduction. John Wiley & Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  109. Sons. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  110. Diani, M., & Mische, A. (2015). Network approaches and social movements. The Oxford handbook of social movements, 306–325. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxford- hb/9780199678402.013.9 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  111. Dobusch, L., & Schoeneborn, D. (2015). Fluidity, identity, and organizationality: The communicative constitution of Anonymous. Journal of Management Studies, 52(8), 1005– 1035. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12139 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  112. Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2010). The diffusion of different types of internet activism: Suggestive patterns in website adoption of innovations. In The Diffusion of Social Movements: Actors, Mechanisms, and Political Effects (pp. 125–139). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511761638.008 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  113. Earl, J., Kimport, K., Prieto, G., Rush, C., & Reynoso, K. (2010). Changing the world one webpage at a time: Conceptualizing and explaining Internet activism. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 15(4), 425–446. https://doi.org/10.17813/ maiq.15.4.w03123213lh37042 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  114. eurostat. (2019). Population (demography, migration and projections). https://ec.europa. eu/eurostat/web/population-demography-migration-projections/data/database Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  115. Freelon, D., Lopez, L., Clark, M. D., & Jackson, S. J. (2018). How Black Twitter and other social media communities interact with mainstream news. SocArXiv. https://doi. org/10.31235/osf.io/nhsd9 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  116. Freelon, D., McIlwain, C. D., & Clark, M. D. (2016). Beyond the Hashtags: #Ferguson, #Blacklivesmatter, and the online struggle for offline justice. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2747066 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  117. Friemel, T. N. (2008). Anatomie von Kommunikationsrollen [Anatomy of communication roles]. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 60(3), 473-499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-008-0024-7 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  118. Gallagher, R. J., Stowell, E., Parker, A. G., & Welles, B. F. (2019). Reclaiming stigmatized narratives: The networked disclosure landscape of# MeToo. https://doi.org/10.31235/ osf.io/qsmce Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  119. Gladwell, M. (2010). Small change. The New Yorker, 4(2010), 42–49. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  120. González-Bailón, S., & Wang, N. (2016). Networked discontent: The anatomy of protest campaigns in social media. Social Networks, 44, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soc- net.2015.07.003 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  121. Griffin, D. (2018). Coming #HomeToVote: top tweets from emigrants making epic journeys back. https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/abroad/coming-hometovote-top- tweets-from-emigrants-making-epic-journeys-back-1.3507119 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  122. Jefferson, H. (2018). GetOldTweets-python. https://github.com/Jefferson-Henrique/Ge- tOldTweets-python Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  123. Klinger, U. (2018). Aufstieg der Semiöffentlichkeit: Eine relationale Perspektive [The rise of semi-public spheres: A relational perspective]. Publizistik, 63(2), 245–267. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11616-018-0421-5 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  124. Lewis, K., Gray, K., & Meierhenrich, J. (2014). The structure of online activism. Sociological Science, 1, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.15195/v1.a1 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  125. Litt, E., & Hargittai, E. (2016). The imagined audience on social network sites. Social Media+ Society, 2(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116633482 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  126. London-Irish Abortion Rights Campaign. (2018a). GO #HOMETOVOTE. #HomeToVote. https://hometovote.com/go-home-to-vote/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  127. London-Irish Abortion Rights Campaign. (2018b). #HOMETOVOTE: A REFERENDUM IS ON THE WAY AND IRELAND NEEDS YOU. https://londonirisharc.com/ repeal-london/2018/1/31/home-to-vote-a-referendum-is-on-the-way-and-ireland-needs- you-8tfwm Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  128. Marwick, A. E., & boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  129. Mercea, D., & Yilmaz, K. E. (2018). Movement social learning on Twitter: The case of the People’s Assembly. The sociological review, 66(1), 20–40. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444810365313 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  130. Papacharissi, Z. (2008). The virtual sphere 2.0: The Internet, the public sphere, and beyond. In Routledge handbook of Internet politics (pp. 246–261). Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9780203962541-24 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  131. Rasmussen, T. (2008). Panel discussion II: Culture and media technology. The internet and differentiation in the political public sphere. Nordicom Review, 29(2), 73–83. https:// doi.org/10.1515/nor-2017-0178 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  132. Raupp, J. (2011). Organizational communication in a networked public sphere. Studies in Communication and Media,(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2011-1-71 Reuters. (2019). Ireland – Reuters Institute Digital News Report. https://static.rasset.ie/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  133. documents/news/2019/06/digital.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  134. Sassen, S. (2007). Electronic networks, power, and democracy. In C. Avgerou, R. Mansell, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  135. D. Quah, & R. Silverstone (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information and Communication Technologies (pp. 339–362). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxford- hb/9780199548798.003.0014 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  136. Segerberg, A., & Bennett, W. L. (2011). Social media and the organization of collective action: Using Twitter to explore the ecologies of two climate change protests. The Communication Review, 14(3), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2011.597 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  137. 250 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  138. Smith, M. A., Rainie, L., Shneiderman, B., & Himelboim, I. (2014). Mapping Twitter topic networks: From polarized crowds to community clusters. Pew Research Center, 20, 1–56. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  139. Soares, F. B., Recuero, R., & Zago, G. (2019). Asymmetric polarization on Twitter and the 2018 Brazilian presidential elections. SMSociety ‘19: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Social Media and Society, 67–76. https://doi. org/10.1145/3328529.3328546 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  140. Stier, S., Schünemann, W. J., & Steiger, S. (2018). Of activists and gatekeepers: Temporal and structural properties of policy networks on Twitter. New Media & Society, 20(5), 1910–1930. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817709282 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  141. Tarrow, S. (2005). The new transnational activism. Cambridge university press. https://doi. org/10.1017/CBO9780511791055.002 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  142. Tarrow, S. (2011). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics. Cambridge university press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  143. Tarrow, S. (2013). Contentious politics. In D. A. Snow, D. della Porta, B. Klandermans, & Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  144. D. McAdam (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of social and political movements. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470674871.wbespm051 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  145. Theocharis, Y., Lowe, W., Van Deth, J. W., & García-Albacete, G. (2015). Using Twitter to mobilize protest action: Online mobilization patterns and action repertoires in the Occupy Wall Street, Indignados, and Aganaktismenoi movements. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 202–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2014.948035 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  146. Tilly, C., & Tarrow, S. (2015). Contentious politics. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  147. Tremayne, M. (2014). Anatomy of protest in the digital era: A network analysis of Twitter and Occupy Wall Street. Social Movement Studies, 13(1), 110–126. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14742837.2013.830969 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  148. Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  149. Yale University Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  150. Wasik, B. (2009). And then there’s this: How stories live and die in viral culture. Penguin. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  151. Weller, K., Bruns, A., Burgess, J., Mahrt, M., & Puschmann, C. (2014). Twitter and society Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  152. (Vol. 89). Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4539-1170-9 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-502
  153. Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., & Purvis, R. (2011). Technostress: Technological antecedents and implications. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 35(4), 831–858. https:// doi.org/10.2307/41409963 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  154. Bailenson, J. N. (2021). Nonverbal overload: A theoretical argument for the causes of Zoom fatigue. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/ tmb0000030 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  155. Bäuerle, A., Teufel, M., Musche, V., Weismüller, B., Kohler, H., Hetkamp, M., Dörrie, N., Schweda, A., & Skoda, E. (2020). Increased generalized anxiety, depression and distress during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study in Germany. Journal of Public Health, 42(4), 672–678. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdaa106 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  156. Betsch, C., Korn, L., Felgendreff, L., Eitze, S., Schmid, P., Sprengholz, P., Wieler, L., Schmich, P., Stollorz, V., Ramharter, M., Bosnjak, M., Omer, S. B., Thaiss, H., De Bock, F., Von Rüden, U., Ebert, C., Steinert, J., & Bruder, M. (2020). German COVID-19 snapshot monitoring (COSMO) – Welle 12 (19.05.2020). PsychArchives. https://doi. org/10.23668/PSYCHARCHIVES.3023 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  157. Best, L. A., Law, M. A., Roach, S., & Wilbiks, J. M. P. (2020). The psychological impact of COVID-19 in Canada: Effects of social isolation during the initial response. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/cap0000254 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  158. Bitkom (2020, May 27). Social-Media-Nutzung steigt durch Corona stark an [Social media usage rises sharply due to Corona] (Press release). Retrieved from https://www.bitkom. org/Presse/Presseinformation/Social-Media-Nutzung-steigt-durch-Corona-stark-an Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  159. Brod, C. (1982). Managing technostress: Optimizing the use of computer technology. Personnel Journal, 61(10), 753–757. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  160. Brod, C. (1984). Technostress: The human cost of the computer revolution. Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  161. Eimeren, B. v., Kessler, B., & Kupferschmitt, T. (2020). Auswirkungen der Corona-Pandemie auf Mediennutzung, Motive und Bewertungen. Sonderauswertungen der ARD/ ZDF-Massenkommunikation Langzeitstudie [Effects of the Corona pandemic on media use, motives, and evaluations. Special analyses of the ARD/ZDF mass communication long-term study]. Media Perspektiven, 10–11, 526–555. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  162. Freytag, A., Knop-Huelss, K., Meier, A., Reinecke, L., Hefner, D., Klimmt, C., & Vorderer, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  163. P. (2021). Permanently online – Always stressed out? The effects of permanent connectedness on stress experiences. Human Communication Research, 47(2), 132–165. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqaa014 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  164. Gentemann, L. (2020). Corona-Pandemie: Arbeit im Homeoffice nimmt deutlich zu [Corona pandemic: Home office work increases significantly]. Bitkom research. Retrieved from https://www.bitkom-research.de/de/pressemitteilung/corona-pandemie-arbeit-im-homeof- fice-nimmt-deutlich-zu Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  165. Gimpel, H., Lanzl, J., Manner-Romberg, T., & Nüsken, N. (2018). Digitaler Stress in Deutschland: Eine Befragung von Erwerbstätigen zu Belastung und Beanspruchung durch Arbeit mit digitalen Technologien [Digital stress in Germany: A survey of employees on stress and strain caused by working with digital technologies] (Working Paper 101). Hans Böckler Stiftung. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  166. Gimpel, H., Bayer, S., Lanzl, J., Regal, C., Schäfer, R., & Schoch, M. (2020). Digitale Arbeit während der COVID-19-Pandemie. Eine Studie zu den Auswirkungen der Pandemie auf Arbeit und Stress in Deutschland [Digital work during the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on the impact of the pandemic on work and stress in Germany]. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  167. Projektgruppe Wirtschaftsinformatik des Fraunhofer FIT. https://doi.org/10.24406/ FIT-N-618361 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  168. Hall, J. A. (2017). The experience of mobile entrapment in daily life. Journal of Media Psychology, 29(3), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000228 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  169. Hall, J. A., & Baym, N. K. (2012). Calling and texting (too much): Mobile maintenance expectations, (over)dependence, entrapment, and friendship satisfaction. New Media & Society, 14(2), 316–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811415047 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  170. Hefner, D., & Vorderer, P. (2016). Digital stress: Permanent connectedness and multitasking. In L. Reinecke & M. Oliver (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of media use and well-being: International perspectives on theory and research on positive media effects (pp. 237–249). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315714752 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  171. Hoenig, K., & Wenz, S. E. (2020). Education, health behavior, and working conditions during the pandemic: Evidence from a German sample. European Societies, 23(Supl. 1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2020.1824004 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  172. Hofmann, J., Piele, A., & Piele, C. (2020). Arbeiten in der Coronapandemie – Auf dem Weg zum New Normal [Working in the Corona pandemic –Toward the new normal]. Retrieved from http://publica.fraunhofer.de/eprints/urn_nbn_de_0011-n-5934454.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  173. Kinnebrock, S., & C. Nitsch (2020). “Ganz schön sozial-medial erschöpft... ” Eine qualitative Inhaltsanalyse über digitalen Stress und immanente Genderbezüge [“Quite exhausted by social media... ” A qualitative content analysis on digital stress and immanent gender references]. Medien Und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 68(3), 288–303. https:/doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2020-3-288 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  174. Kohlrausch, B., & Zucco, A. (2020). Die Corona-Krise trifft Frauen doppelt: Weniger Erwerbsarbeit und mehr Sorgearbeit [The Corona crisis hits women twice: Less gainful employment and more care work]. Policy Brief WSI, 40, 1–11. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  175. LaRose, R., Connolly, R., Lee, H., Li, K., & Hales, K. D. (2014). Connection overload? A cross-cultural study of the consequences of social media connection. Information Systems Management, 31(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2014.854097 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  176. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  177. Lemenager, T., Neissner, M., Koopmann, A., Reinhard, I., Georgiadou, E., Müller, A., Kiefer, F., & Hillemacher, T. (2021). COVID-19 lockdown restrictions and online media consumption in Germany. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(1), 14. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010014 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  178. Maier, C., Laumer, S., Weinert, C., & Weitzel, T. (2015). The effects of technostress and switching stress on discontinued use of social networking services: A study of Facebook use. Information Systems Journal, 25(3), 275–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/ isj.12068 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  179. Meyer, M., Wiegand, S., & Schenkel, A. (2020). Krankheitsbedingte Fehlzeiten in der deutschen Wirtschaft im Jahr 2019 [Sickness-related absences in the German economy in 2019]. In B. Badura, A. Ducki, H. Schröder, J. Klose, & M. Meyer (Eds.), FehlzeitenReport 2020. Gerechtigkeit und Gesundheit [Absenteeism Report 2020. Equity and Health]. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-61524-9_23 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  180. Möhring, K., Naumann, E., Reifenscheid, M., Wenz, A., Rettig, T., Krieger, U., Friedel, S., Finkel, M., Cornesse, C., & Blom, A. G. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic and subjective well-being: Longitudinal evidence on satisfaction with work and family. European Societies, 23(Supl. 1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2020.1833066 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  181. Naumann, E., Möhring, K., Reifenscheid, M., Wenz, A., Rettig, T., Lehrer, R., Krieger, U., Juhl, S., Friedel, S., Fikel, M., Cornesse, C., & Blom, A. G. (2020). COVID-19 policies in Germany and their social, political, and psychological consequences. European Policy Analysis, 6(2), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1091 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  182. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Schulz, A., Andi, S., & Nielsen, R. K. (2020). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2020. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2020-06/DNR_2020_ FINAL.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  183. Oksanen, A., Oksa, R., Savela, N., Mantere, E., Savolainen, I., & Kaakinen, M. (2021). COVID-19 crisis and digital stressors at work: A longitudinal study on the Finnish working population. Computers in Human Behavior, 122, 106853. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106853 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  184. Pfefferbaum, B., Seale. T. W., McDonald, N. B., Brandt, E. N. Jr, Rainwater, S. M., Maynard, B. T., Meierhoefer, B., & Miller, P. D. (2000). Posttraumatic stress two years after the Oklahoma City bombing in youths geographically distant from the explosion. Psychiatry, 63(4), 358–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.2000.11024929 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  185. Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1841–1848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  186. Ragu-Nathan, T. S., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Tu, Q. (2008). The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: Conceptual development and empirical validation. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1287/ isre.1070.0165 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  187. Rees, J., Papendick, M., Rees, Y., Wäschle, F., & Zick, A. (2020). Erste Ergebnisse einer Online-Umfrage zur gesellschaftlichen Wahrnehmung des Umgangs mit der Corona-Pandemie in Deutschland [First results of an online survey on the societal perceptions of the handling of the Corona pandemic in Germany]. Institut für interdisziplinäre Konflikt- und Gewaltforschung (IKG). https:/doi.org/10.13140/ RG.2.2.25322.34249 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  188. Reinecke, L., Aufenanger, S., Beutel, M. E., Dreier, M., Quiring, O., Stark, B., Wölfling, K., & Müller, K. (2017). Digital stress over the life span: The effects of communication load and internet multitasking on perceived stress and psychological health impairments in a German probability sample. Media Psychology, 20(1), 90–115. https://doi. org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1121832 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  189. Schmidt, C. (2000). Analyse von Leitfadeninterviews [Analysis of guided interviews]. In U. Flick, E. v. Kardorff, & I. Steineke (Eds.), Qualitative Forschung: Ein Handbuch [Qualitative research: A handbook] (pp. 447–456). Rowohlt. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  190. Schmitt, J. B., Breuer, J., & Wulf, T. (2021). From cognitive overload to digital detox: Psychological implications of telework during the COVID-19 pandemic. Computers in Human Behavior, 106899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106899 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  191. Schuster, M. A., Stein, B. D., Jaycox, L. H., Collins, R. L., Marshall, G. N., Elliott, M. N., Zhou, A. J., Kanouse, D. E., Morrison, J., & Berry, S. H. (2001). A national survey of stress reactions after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. New England Journal of Medicine, 345(20), 1507–1512. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200111153452024 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  192. Skoda, E.-M., Bäuerle, A., Schweda, A., Dörrie, N., Musche, V., Hetkamp, M., Kohler, H., Teufel, M., & Weismüller, B. (2020). Severely increased generalized anxiety, but not COVID-19-related fear in individuals with mental illnesses: A population based cross-sectional study in Germany. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 67(5), 550–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764020960773 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  193. Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2010). Impact of technostress on end-user satisfaction and performance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(3), 303–334. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222270311 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  194. Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., & Ragu-Nathan, B. S. (2011). Crossing to the dark side: Examining creators, outcomes, and inhibitors of technostress. Communications of the ACM, 54(9), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1145/1995376.1995403 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  195. Vorderer, P., Hefner, D., Reinecke, L., & Klimmt, C. (Eds.). (2018). Permanently online, permanently connected: Living and communicating in a POPC world. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315276472 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  196. Weinstein, E. C., & Selman R. L. (2016). Digital stress: Adolescents’ personal accounts. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  197. New Media & Society, 18(3), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814543989 Weinstein, E. C., Selman R. L., Thomas, S., Jung-Eun, K., White, A. E., & Dinakar, K. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  198. (2016). How to cope with digital stress: The recommendations adolescents offer their peers online. Journal of Adolescent Research, 31(4), 415–441. https://doi. org/10.1177/0743558415587326 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  199. Wiederhold, B. K. (2020). Connecting through technology during the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: Avoiding “Zoom fatigue.” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(7), 437–438. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.29188.bkw Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  200. Zoch, G., Bächmann, A.-C., & Vicari, B. (2020). Who cares when care closes? Care arrangements and parental working conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. European Societies, 23(sup1), 576–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.202 0.1832700 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-533
  201. Arnett, J. J. (2000). Optimistic bias in adolescent and adult smokers and nonsmokers. Addictive Behaviors, 25(4), 625–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4603(99)00072-6 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  202. BAG [FOPH] (2009). Nationales Programm zur Tabakprävention 2001–2008. Schlussbericht [National tobacco reduction program 2001–2008. Final report]. Bundesamt für Gesundheit. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  203. BAG [FOPH] (2012). Nationales Programm Tabak 2008–2016 [National tobacco program 2008–2016]. Bundesamt für Gesundheit. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  204. BAG [FOPH] (2018). Tabak verursacht jährlich 9500 Todesfälle [Tobacco causes 9500 deaths annually.] Abgerufen von https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/de/home/gesund-leben/ sucht-und-gesundheit/tabak.html (06.08.2018). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  205. BAG [FOPH] (2019). Zahlen & Fakten: Tabak. [Facts & Figures: Tobacco.] Abgerufen von https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/de/home/zahlen-und-statistiken/zahlen-fakten-zu- sucht/zahlen-fakten-zu-tabak.html (29.08.2019). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  206. Bargh, J. A. (1992). The ecology of automaticity: Toward establishing the conditions needed to produce automatic processing effects. American Journal of Psychology, 105(2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423027 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  207. Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics, 8(5), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212593 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  208. BfS [FSO] (2017a). Schweizerische Gesundheitsbefragung 2017 [Swiss Health Survey Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  209. 2017]. Bundesamt für Statistik. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  210. BfS [FSO] (2017b). Tabak [Tobacco.] Abgerufen von https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/ home/statistiken/gesundheit/determinanten/tabak.html (06.08.2018). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  211. Borrelli, B., Hayes, R. B., Dunsiger, S., & Fava, J. L. (2010). Risk perception and smoking behavior in medically ill smokers: a prospective study. Addiction, 105(6), 1100–1108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.02900.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  212. Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (2013). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. Academic Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  213. Chapin, J. R. (2000). Third-person perception and optimistic bias among urban minority at-risk youth. Communication Research, 27(1), 51–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365000027001003 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  214. Cho, H., & Salmon, C. T. (2006). Fear appeals for individuals in different stages of change: Intended and unintended effects and implications on public health campaigns. Health Communication, 20(1), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00344.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  215. Chung, J. E. (2015). Antismoking campaign videos on YouTube and audience response: Application of social media assessment metrics. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.061 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  216. Cornacchione, J., & Smith, S. W. (2012). The effects of message framing within the stages of change on smoking cessation intentions and behaviors. Health Communication, 27(6), 612–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.619252 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  217. Dardas, L. A., & Ahmad, M. M. (2015). For fathers raising children with autism, do coping strategies mediate or moderate the relationship between parenting stress and quality of life? Research in Developmental Disabilities, 36, 620–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.10.047 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  218. Davis, K. C., Patel, D., Shafer, P., Duke, J., Glover-Kudon, R., Ridgeway, W., & Cox, S. (2018). Association between media doses of the Tips from Former Smokers campaign and cessation behaviors and intentions to quit among cigarette smokers, 2012–2015. Health Education & Behavior, 45(1), 52–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198117709316 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  219. Dillard, A. J., McCaul, K. D., & Klein, W. M. (2006). Unrealistic optimism in smokers: Implications for smoking myth endorsement and self-protective motivation. Journal of Health Communication, 11, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730600637343 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  220. Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its elicit role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637750500111815 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  221. Dosman, D. M., Adamowicz, W. L., & Hrudey, S. E. (2001). Socioeconomic determinants of health- and food safety-related risk perceptions. Risk Analyses, 21(2), 307–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.212113 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  222. Durkin, S., Brennan, E., & Wakefield, M. (2012). Mass media campaigns to promote smoking cessation among adults: an integrative review. Tobacco Control, 21(2), 127–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050345 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  223. Erceg-Hurn, D., & Steed, L. (2011). Does exposure to cigarette health warnings elicit psychological reactance in smokers? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(1), 219–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00710.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  224. Fowler, S. L., & Geers, A. L. (2015). Dispositional and comparative optimism interact to predict avoidance of a looming health threat. Psychology & Health, 30(4), 456–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2014.977282 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  225. Glock, S., & Kneer, J. (2009). Are deterrent pictures effective? The impact of warning labels on cognitive dissonance in smokers. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 1(3), 356–373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01019.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  226. Hammond, D. (2011). Health warning messages on tobacco products: a review. Tobacco Control, 20(5), 327–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tc.2010.037630 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  227. Harmon-Jones, & Allen, John J. B. (2001). The role of affect in the mere exposure effect: Evidence from psychophysiological and individual differences approaches. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(7), 889–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201277011 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  228. Harré, N., Foster, S., & O’Neill, N. (2005). Self-enhancement, crash-risk optimism and the impact of safety advertisements on young drivers. British Journal of Psychology, 96(2), 215–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000712605X36019 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  229. Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2010). Quantifying and testing indirect effects in simple mediation models when the constituent paths are nonlinear. Multivariate behavioral research, 45(4), 627–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2010.498290 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  230. Helweg-Larsen, M., & Shepperd, J. A. (2001). Do moderators of the optimistic bias affect personal or target risk estimates? A review of the literature. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(1), 74–95. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0501_5 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  231. Huang, L. L., Thrasher, J. F., Abad, E. N., Cummings, K. M., Bansal-Travers, M., Brown, A., & Nagelhout, G. E. (2015). The US national tips from former smokers antismoking campaign: promoting awareness of smoking-related risks, cessation resources, and cessation behaviors. Health Education & Behavior, 42(2), 480–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198114564503 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  232. Kang, J., & Lin, C. A. (2015). Effects of message framing and visual-fear appeals on smoker responses to antismoking ads. Journal of Health Communication, 20(6), 647–655. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1012242 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  233. Kim, H. K., & Lee, T. K. (2017). Conditional effects of gain–loss-framed narratives among current smokers at different stages of change. Journal of Health Communication, 22(12), 990–998. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2017.1396629 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  234. Kim, H. K., & Niederdeppe, J. (2016). Effects of self-affirmation, narratives, and informational messages in reducing unrealistic optimism about alcohol-related problems among college students. Human Communication Research, 42(2), 246–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12073 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  235. Kite, J., Foley, B. C., Grunseit, A. C., & Freeman, B. (2016). Please like me: Facebook and public health communication. PloS one, 11(9), e0162765. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162765 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  236. Kleinjan, M., van den Eijnden, R. J., & Engels, R. C. (2009). Adolescents’ rationalizations to continue smoking: the role of disengagement beliefs and nicotine dependence in smoking cessation. Addictive Behaviors, 34(5), 440–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.12.010 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  237. Koch, T. (2017). Again and again (and again): A repetition-frequency-model of persuasive communication. Studies in Communication and Media, 6(3), 213–239. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2017-3-218. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  238. LaVoie, N. R., Quick, B. L., Riles, J. M., & Lambert, N. J. (2017). Are graphic cigarette warning labels an effective message strategy? A test of psychological reactance theory and source appraisal. Communication Research, 44(3), 416–436. https://doi. org/10.1177/0093650215609669 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  239. Lewis, I., Watson, B., Tay, R., & White, K. M. (2007). The role of fear appeals in improving driver safety: A review of the effectiveness of fear-arousing (threat) appeals in road safety advertising. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 3(2), 203–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0100799 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  240. Maher, C. A., Lewis, L. K., Ferrar, K., Marshall, S., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Vandelanotte, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  241. C. (2014). Are health behavior change interventions that use online social networks effective? A systematic review. Journal of medical Internet research, 16(2), e40. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2952 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  242. Maloney, E. K., Lapinski, M. K., & Witte, K. (2011). Fear appeals and persuasion: A review and update of the extended parallel process model. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(4), 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00341.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  243. McCaul, K. D., Hockemeyer, J. R., Johnson, R. J., Zetocha, K., Quinlan, K., & Glasgow, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  244. R. E. (2006). Motivation to quit using cigarettes: a review. Addictive Behaviors, 31(1), 42–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.04.004 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  245. Nordhielm, C. L. (2002). The influence of level of processing on advertising repetition effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 371–382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/344428 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  246. Peters, G. J. Y., Ruiter, R. A., & Kok, G. (2013). Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory. Health Psychology Review, 7(sup 1), 8–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2012.703527 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  247. Paeratakul, S., White, M. A., Williamson, D. A., Ryan, D. H., & Bray, G. A. (2002). Sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and BMI in relation to self-perception of overweight. Obesity, 10(5), 345–350. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2002.48 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  248. Pechmann, C., & Stewart, D. W. (1988). Advertising repetition: A critical review of wearin and wearout. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 11(1-2), 285–329. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  249. Popova, L., & Halpern-Felsher, B. L. (2016). A longitudinal study of adolescents’ optimistic bias about risks and benefits of cigarette smoking. American Journal of Health Behavior, 40(3), 341–351. https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.40.3.6 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  250. Ruiter, R. A., Kessels, L. T., Peters, G. J. Y., & Kok, G. (2014). Sixty years of fear appeal research: Current state of the evidence. International Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 63–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12042 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  251. Schmidt, S., & Eisend, M. (2015). Advertising repetition: A meta-analysis on effective frequency in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 44(4), 41–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2015.1018460 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  252. Schumann, D., Petty, R. E., & Clemons, D. S. (1990). Predicting the effectiveness of different strategies of advertising variation: A test of the repetition-variation hypotheses. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1086/208549 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  253. Shepperd, J. A., Klein, W. M., Waters, E. A., & Weinstein, N. D. (2013). Taking stock of unrealistic optimism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 395–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613485247 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  254. Smith, K. H., & Stutts, M. A. (2003). Effects of short-term cosmetic versus long-term health fear appeals in anti-smoking advertisements on the smoking behaviour of adolescents. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review, 3(2), 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.130 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  255. SmokeFree (2017). Smoke Free – Ich bin stärker [Smoke Free – I am stronger.] Abgerufen Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  256. von https://www.smokefree.ch/de/ (20.03.2017). Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  257. Snyder, L. B., Hamilton, M. A., Mitchell, E. W., Kiwanuka-Tondo, J., Fleming-Milici, F., & Proctor, D. (2004). A meta-analysis of the effect of mediated health communication campaigns on behavior change in the United States. Journal of Health Communication, 9(S 1), 71–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730490271548 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  258. Steindl, C., Jonas, E., Sittenthaler, S., Traut-Mattausch, E., & Greenberg, J. (2015). Understanding psychological reactance. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223. 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000222 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  259. Suchtmonitoring Schweiz [Addiction Monitoring Switzerland] (2011). Publikationen [Publications]. Abgerufen von http://www.suchtmonitoring.ch/de/page/9.html (15.09.2014) Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  260. Tannenbaum, M. B., Hepler, J., Zimmerman, R. S., Saul, L., Jacobs, S., Wilson, K., & Albarracín, D. (2015). Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1178–1204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039729 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  261. Tellis, G. J. (1997). Effective frequency: One exposure or three factors? Journal of Advertising Research, 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230802606984 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  262. Tian, Y., & Robinson, J. D. (2009). Incidental health information use on the Internet. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  263. Health Communication, 24(1), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230802606984 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  264. Topa, G., & Moriano, J. A. (2010). Theory of planned behavior and smoking: Meta-analysis and SEM model. Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation, 1, 23–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/SAR.S15168 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  265. Walton, D., & McKeown, P. C. (2001). Drivers’ biased perceptions of speed and safety campaign messages. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 33(5), 629–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(00)00076-2 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  266. Wakefield, M., Freeman, J., & Donovan, R. (2003). Recall and response of smokers and recent quitters to the Australian National Tobacco Campaign. Tobacco Control, 12(suppl 2), ii15–ii22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tc.12.suppl_2.ii15 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  267. Wakefield, M. A., Loken, B., & Hornik, R. C. (2010). Use of mass media campaigns to change health behaviour. The Lancet, 376 (9748), 1261–1271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60809-4 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  268. Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 806–820. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.806 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  269. Weinstein, N. D. (1984). Why it won’t happen to me: perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility. Health Psychology, 3(5), 431–457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.3.5.431 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  270. Weinstein, N. D., Marcus, S. E., & Moser, R. P. (2005). Smokers’ unrealistic optimism about their risk. Tobacco Control, 14(1), 55–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tc.2004.008375 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  271. Weinstein, N. D., & Sandman, P. M. (1992). A model of the precaution adoption process: evidence from home radon testing. Health Psychology, 11(3), 170–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.11.3.170 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  272. Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communications Monographs, 59(4), 329–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  273. Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Sciene, 10(6), 224–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00154 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-557
  274. Akbik, A., Bergmann, T., Blythe, D., Rasul, K., Schweter, S., & Vollgraf, R. (2019). FLAIR: An easy-to-use framework for state-of-the-art NLP. In W. Ammar, A. Louis, & N. Mostafazadeh (Hrsg.), Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (S. 54–59). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-4010 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  275. Akbik, A., Blythe, D., & Vollgraf, R. (2018). Contextual string embeddings for sequence labeling. In E. Bender, L. Derczynski, & P. Isabelle (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (S. 1638–1649). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C18-1139/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  276. Al-Moslmi, T., Gallofré Ocaña, M., Opdahl, A. L., & Veres, C. (2020). Named entity extraction for knowledge graphs: A literature overview. IEEE Access, 8, 32862–32881. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2973928 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  277. Augenstein, I., Derczynski, L., & Bontcheva, K. (2017). Generalisation in named entity recognition: A quantitative analysis. Computer Speech & Language 44, 61–83. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2017.01.012 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  278. Bach, N., & Badaskar, S. (2007). A review of relation extraction. Carnegie Mellon University. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~nbach/papers/A-survey-on-Relation-Extraction.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  279. Benikova, D., Biemann, C., & Reznicek, M. (2014). NoSta-D named entity annotation for German: Guidelines and dataset. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, H. Loftsson, Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  280. B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14) (S. 2524–2531). http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2014/pdf/276_Paper.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  281. Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3(Jan), 993–1022. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  282. Blei, D. M. (2012). Probabilistic topic models. Communications of the ACM, 55(4), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1145/2133806.2133826 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  283. Boberg, S., Quandt, T., Schatto-Eckrodt, T., & Frischlich, L. (2020). Pandemic populism: Facebook pages of alternative news media and the corona crisis a computational content analysis [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.02566v3 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  284. Boukes, M., van de Velde, B., Araujo, T., & Vliegenthart, R. (2020). What’s the tone? Easy doesn’t do it: Analyzing performance and agreement between off-the-shelf sentiment analysis tools. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(2), 83–104. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/19312458.2019.1671966 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  285. Boumans, J., & Trilling, D. (2016). Taking stock of the toolkit. Digital Journalism, 4(1), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2015.1096598 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  286. Burggraaff, C., & Trilling, D. (2020). Through a different gate: An automated content analysis of how online news and print news differ. Journalism, 21, 112–129. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1464884917716699 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  287. Derczynski, L. (2016). Complementarity, F-score, and NLP evaluation. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, S. Goggi, M. Grobelnik, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, H. Mazo, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16) (S. 261–266). European Language Resources Association. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/L16-1040 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  288. Di Franco, G., & Santurro, M. (2021). Machine learning, artificial neural networks and social research. Quality & Quantity, 55(3), 1007–1025. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11135-020-01037-y Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  289. Dipper, S., & Kübler, S. (2017). German treebanks: TIGER and TüBa-D/Z. In N. Ide & J. Pustejovsky (Hrsg.), Handbook of linguistic annotation (S. 595–639). Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0881-2_22 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  290. Domahidi, E., Yang, J., Niemann-Lenz, J., & Reinecke, L. (2019). Outlining the way ahead in computational communication science: An introduction to the IJoC special section on “Computational methods for communication science: Toward a strategic roadmap”. International Journal of Communication, 13, 3876–3884. https://ijoc.org/index. php/ijoc/article/view/10533 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  291. Dumm, S., & Niekler, A. (2014). Methoden und Gütekriterien. Computergestützte Diskurs- und Inhaltsanalysen zwischen Sozialwissenschaft und Automatischer Sprachverarbeitung [Methods and quality criteria. Computer-aided discourse and content analyses between social science and automatic language processing]. Schriftenreihe des Verbundprojekts Postdemokratie und Neoliberalismus, Discussion Paper 4. http:// www.epol-projekt.de/discussion-paper/discussion-paperdiscussion-paper-4/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  292. Eftimov, T., Korousić Seljak, B., & Korosec, P. (2017). A rule-based named-entity recognition method for knowledge extraction of evidence-based dietary recommendations. PLoS ONE, 12(6), Article e0179488. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179488 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  293. Eisenegger, M., Oehmer, F., Udris, L., & Vogler, D. (2020). Qualität der Medien Studie 1/2020: Die Qualität der Medienberichterstattung zur Corona-Pandemie [The quality of media 1/2020: The quality of media coverage of the Corona pandemic]. Forschungszentrum Öffentlichkeit und Gesellschaft (fög). http://www.foeg.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ad278037-fa75-4eea-a674-7e5ae5ad9c78/Studie_01_2020.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  294. Faruqi, M., & Padó, S. (2010). Training and evaluating a German named entity recognizer with semantic generalization. In M. Pinkal, I. Rehbein, S. Schulte im Walde, & A. Storrer (Hrsg.), Semantic approaches in natural language processing: Proceedings of the Conference on Natural Language Processing 2010 (S. 129–134). Universaar. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  295. Gaus, A. (2018). 8 lessons learned about NER. Medium, dpa-newslab, 06.02.2018, https:// medium.com/dpa-newslab/8-lessons-learned-about-ner-f40b263490db Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  296. Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21 (3), 267–297. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mps028 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  297. Günther, E., & Quandt, T. (2016). Word counts and topic models: Automated text analysis methods for digital journalism research. Digital Journalism, 4(1), 75–88. https://doi.or g/10.1080/21670811.2015.1093270 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  298. Hepp, A. (2016). Kommunikationsund Medienwissenschaft in datengetriebenen Zeiten [Communciation and media science in datadriven times]. Publizistik 61, 225–246. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-016-0263-y Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  299. Honnibal, M. (o.J.). spaCy’s NER model [Video]. Abgerufen von https://spacy.io/universe/ project/video-spacys-ner-model. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  300. Honnibal, M., Montani, I., Van Landeghem, S., & Boyd, A. (2020). spaCy: Industrial-strength Natural Language Processing in Python. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.1212303 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  301. Jannidis, F. (2017). Grundbegriffe des Programmierens [Basic concepts of programming]. In F. Jannidis, H. Kohle, & M. Rehbein (Hrsg.), Digital Humanities: Eine Einführung (S. 68–95). J. B. Metzler. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  302. Jiang, R., Banchs, R. E., & Li, H. (2016). Evaluating and combining name entity recognition systems. In X. Duan, R. E. Banchs, M. Zhang, H. Li, & A. Kumaran (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the Sixth Named Entity Workshop (S. 21–27). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W16-2703 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  303. Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2021). Speech and language processing. An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition (3rd edition draft). Pearson. https://web.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/slp3/ed3book_sep212021.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  304. Karlsson, M., & Sjøvaag, H. (2016). Introduction: Research methods in an age of digital journalism. Digital Journalism, 4(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2015.109 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  305. 6595 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  306. Kelm, O., Gerl, K., & Meißner, F. (2020). Machine learning. In I. Borucki, K. Kleinen-von Königslöw, S. Marschall, & T. Zerback (Hrsg.), Handbuch Politische Kommunikation (S.1–9). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26242-6_55-1 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  307. Ketschik, N., Overbeck, M., Murr, S., Pichler, A., & Blessing, A. (2020). Interdisziplinäre Annotation von Entitätenreferenzen. Von fachspezifischen Fragestellungen zur einheitlichen methodischen Umsetzung [Interdisciplinary annotation of entity references. From subject-specific issues to uniform methodological implementation]. In N. Reiter, A. Pichler, & Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  308. J. Kuhn (Hrsg.), Reflektierte algorithmische Textanalyse [Reflective algorithmic text analysis] (S. 203–236). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110693973-010 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  309. Lane, H., Howard, C., & Hapke, H. (2019). Natural language processing in action. Understanding, analyzing, and generating text with Python. Manning, Pearson Education. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  310. LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436–444. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  311. Leidecker-Sandmann, M., Attar, P., & Lehmkuhl, M. (2021). Selected by expertise? Scientific experts in German news coverage on Covid-19 compared to other pandemics [Preprint]. SocArXiv. https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/cr7dj/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  312. Lewis, S. C., Zamith, R., & Hermida, A. (2013). Content analysis in an era of Big Data: A hybrid approach to computational and manual methods. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 57(1), 34–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.761702 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  313. Marrero, M., Urbano, J., Sánchez-Cuadrado, S., Morato, J., & Gómez-Berbís, J. M. (2013). Named entity recognition: Fallacies, challenges and opportunities. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 35(5), 482–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2012.09.004 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  314. Maier, D., Waldherr, A., Miltner, P., Wiedemann, G., Niekler, A., Keinert, A., Pfetsch, B., Heyer, G., Reber, U., Häussler, T., Schmid-Petri, H., & Adam, S. (2018). Applying LDA topic modeling in communication research: Toward a valid and reliable methodology. Communication Methods and Measures, 23(2–3), 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/19 312458.2018.1430754 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  315. Maynard, D., Bontcheva, K., & Augenstein, I. (2016). Natural language processing for the semantic web. Synthesis lectures on the semantic web: Theory and technology, 6, 1–194. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00741ED1V01Y201611WBE015 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  316. Nadeau, D., & Sekine, S. (2007). A survey of named entity recognition and classification. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  317. Linguisticae Investigationes 30(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1075/li.30.1.03na Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  318. Niekler, A. (2018). Automatisierte Verfahren für die Themenanalyse nachrichtenorientierter Textquellen [Automated procedures for topic analysis of news-oriented text sources]. Herbert von Halem Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  319. Niemann-Lenz, J., Bruns, S., Hefner, D., Knop-Hülß, K., Possler, D., Reich, S., Reinecke, L., Scheper, J., & Klimmt, C. (2019). Crafting a strategic roadmap for computational methods in communication science: Learnings from the CCS 2018 Conference in Hanover – Commentary. International Journal of Communication, 13, 3885–3893. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/10534 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  320. Parks, M. R. (2014). Big Data in communication research: Its contents and discontents. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  321. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 355–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12090 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  322. Qi, P., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Bolton, J., & Manning, C. D. (2020). Stanza: A Python natural language processing toolkit for many human languages [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv. org/abs/2003.07082 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  323. Rao, D., McNamee, P., & Dredze, M. (2013). Entity linking: Finding extracted entities in a knowledge base. In T. Poibeau, H. Saggion, J. Piskorski, & R. Yangarber (Hrsg.) Multi-source, Multilingual Information Extraction and Summarization. Theory and Applications of Natural Language Processing, 93–116. Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-642-28569-1_5 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  324. Rössler, M. (2007). Korpus-adaptive Eigennamenerkennung [Corpus-adaptive proper name recognition] [Dissertation, Universität Duisburg-Essen]. Winterthur. https://due- publico2.uni-due.de/receive/duepublico_mods_00014746 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  325. Rössler, P. (2017). Inhaltsanalyse (3. Auflage) [Content analysis (3rd ed.)]. UVK. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  326. Scharkow, M. (2012). Automatische Inhaltsanalyse und maschinelles Lernen [Automatic content analysis and machine learning] [Dissertation, Universität der Künste Berlin]. epubli. https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-udk/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/28/file/disserta- tion_scharkow_final_udk.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  327. Scharkow, M. (2013). Automatische Inhaltsanalyse [Automatic content analysis]. In W. Möhring & D. Schlütz (Hrsg.), Handbuch standardisierte Erhebungsverfahren in der Kommunikationswissenschaft [Handbook of standardized survey procedures in communication science] (S. 289–306). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-18776- 1_16 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  328. Schmidhuber, J. (2015). Deep learning in neural networks: An overview. Neural Networks, 61, 85–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2014.09.003 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  329. Schneider, G. (2014). Automated media content analysis from the perspective of computational linguistics. In K. Sommer, J. Matthes, M. Wettstein, & W. Wirth (Hrsg.), Automatisierung in der Inhaltsanalyse [Automation in content analysis.] (S. 40–54). Herbert von Halem. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  330. Schweiger, W. (2017). Der (des)informierte Bürger im Netz: Wie soziale Medien die Meinungsbildung verändern [The (dis)informed citizen on the internet: How social media are changing the way opinions are formed]. Springer. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  331. Schwotzer, B. (2014). Automatische Selektion von Beiträgen für themenspezifische Inhaltsanalysen mittels Schlagwortlisten [Automatic selection of articles for topic-specific content analyses using keyword lists]. In K. Sommer, J. Matthes, M. Wettstein, & W. Wirth (Hrsg.), Automatisierung in der Inhaltsanalyse [Automation in content analysis] (S. 55–72). Herbert von Halem. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  332. Shelar, H., Kaur, G., Heda, N., & Agrawal, P. (2020). Named entity recognition approaches and their comparison for custom NER model, Science & Technology Libraries 39(3), 324–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2020.1759479 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  333. Sommer, K., Matthes, J., Wettstein, M., & Wirth, W. (2014). Ein Vorwort – Automatisierung in der Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden und Forschungslogik der Kommunikationswissenschaft [Preface – Automation in content analysis]. In K. Sommer, J. Matthes, M. Wettstein, & W. Wirth (Hrsg.), Automatisierung in der Inhaltsanalyse (S. 9–16). Herbert von Halem. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  334. Stoll, A., Ziegele, M., & Quiring, O. (2020). Detecting impoliteness and incivility in online discussions: Classification approaches for German user comments. Computational Communication Research, 2, 109–134. https://doi.org/10.5117/CCR2020.1.005. KATH Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  335. Strippel, C., Bock, A., Katzenbach, C., Mahrt, M., Merten, L., Nuernbergk, C., Pentzold, C., Puschmann, C., & Waldherr, A. (2018). Die Zukunft der Kommunikationswissenschaft ist schon da, sie ist nur ungleich verteilt. Eine Kollektivreplik auf Beiträge im ‘Forum’ (Publizistik Heft 3 und 4, 2016) [The future of communication science is already here, it’s just not evenly distributed. A collective response to contributions in „Forum“ (Publizistik, Issue 3 and 4, 2016)]. Publizistik, 63, 11–27. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11616-017-0398-5 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  336. Tjong Kim Sang, E. F., & De Meulder, F. (2003). Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In W. Daelemans & M. Osborne (Hrsg.), Proceedings of CoNLL-2003 (S. 142–145). Morgan Kaufman Publishers. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  337. van Atteveldt, W., Margolin, D., Shen, C., Trilling, D., & Weber, R. (2019). A roadmap for computational communication research. Computational Communication Research, 1(1). https://computationalcommunication.org/ccr/article/view/37 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  338. van Atteveldt, W., & Peng, T.-Q. (2018). When communication meets computation: Opportunities, challenges, and pitfalls in computational communication science. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(2-3), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.20 18.1458084 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  339. van Atteveldt, W., van der Velden, M. A. C. G., & Boukes, M. (2021). The validity of sentiment analysis: Comparing manual annotation, crowd-coding, dictionary approaches, and machine learning algorithms. Communication Methods and Measures, 15(2), 121– 140. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1869198 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  340. van der Meer, T. G. L. A. (2016). Automated content analysis and crisis communication research. Public Relations Review, 42(5), 952–961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pubrev.2016.09.001 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  341. Wettstein, M. (2014). “Best of both worlds“: Die halbautomatische Inhaltsanalyse [The half-automatic content analysis]. In K. Sommer, J. Matthes, M. Wettstein, & W. Wirth (Hrsg.), Automatisierung in der Inhaltsanalyse (S. 16–39). Herbert von Halem. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  342. Yadav, V., & Bethard, S. (2019). A survey on recent advances in named entity recognition from deep learning models [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.11470 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590
  343. Züll, C., & Mohler, P. (2001). Computerunterstützte Inhaltsanalyse: Codierung und Analyse von Antworten auf offene Fragen [Computer-aided content analysis: coding and analysis of replies to outstanding questions]. GESIS-How-to, 8. Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen (ZUMA). https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168ssoar-201405 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590

Zitation

Download RIS Download BibTex

Downloads

Download Kapitel (PDF)

Hinweis

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt und darf nur nach den Vorgaben der Nutzungs- und Lizenzvereinbarung genutzt werden. Jede darüber hinaus gehende Nutzung des Werkes ist ausdrücklich untersagt und wird verfolgt.

Per E-Mail teilen

Medien