Editorial

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Bibliographische Infos

Cover der Ausgabe: SCM Studies in Communication and Media Jahrgang 15 (2026), Heft 1
Open Access Vollzugriff

SCM Studies in Communication and Media

Jahrgang 15 (2026), Heft 1

Autor:innen:
Verlag
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Copyrightjahr
2026
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
ISSN-Print
2192-4007

Kapitelinformationen

Open Access Vollzugriff

Jahrgang 15 (2026), Heft 1

Editorial

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

Literaturverzeichnis

  1. Döring, N., Krämer, N., Miller, D. J., Quandt, T., & Vowe, G. (2024). Media representations of sexuality in an era of pornification. Studies in Communication and Media, 13(4), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2024-4-385 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  2. Eder, M., Pohl, K., & Sehl, An. (2025). Journalistic quality in the eye of the beholder: An eye-tracking study on user comments and their effect on journalistic quality perception. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(3), 339–361. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-3-339 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  3. Godulla, A., & Hoffmann, C. P. (2025). Ready or not, here I come. How synthetic media challenge epistemic institutions. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(4), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-4-471 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  4. Grub, M. F. (2025). “A rape is a rape is a rape” – A qualitative content analysis of male rape frames in UK print media. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(3), 362–385. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-3-362 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  5. Jungblut, M., & Naderer, B. (2025). A light shade of green: German stock index listed companies’ inclusion of sustainability communication on X and Instagram. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(3), 456–470. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-3-456 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  6. Kessler, S. H. (2025). Misinformation on social media: Individual reception and the importance of self-directed internet search for rebuttal. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(1), 140–166. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-1-140 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  7. Leonhardt, B., Nölleke, D., & Hanusch, F. (2025). The power of perception: How scientific experts’ understanding of media logic affects their media-related behavior. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(2), 203–233. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-2-203 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  8. Lindenauer, T. (2022). Das populistische Krisennarrativ: Eine qualitative Analyse der Wahlkampfkommunikation der AfD auf Facebook. Studies in Communication and Media, 11(1), 98–131. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2022-1-98 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  9. Polkowski, J., Theine, H., & Krüger, U. (2025). Gemeinwohl oder Privateigentum? Die Positionen der deutschsprachigen Presse in der Debatte über eine Freigabe der Corona-Impfstoffpatente. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(2), 234–260. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-2-234 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  10. Reißmann, W., Lünenborg, M., & Siemon, M. (2025). Zum Verhältnis von Journalismus und Aktivismus: Boundary work als Navigieren zwischen Komplementarität und Hybridisierung. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(1), 37–98. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-1-37 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  11. Schindler, J. (2025). Toward a standardized group survey. Introducing a new approach to group-level measurements in communication studies. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(3), 386–420. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-3-386 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  12. Schoolmann, J., & Coenen, E. (2025). Wissenssoziologische Telegram-Analyse. Einführung eines netzwerkorientierten Verfahrens zur Erhebung und Analyse der Social-Media-Kommunikation. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(2), 292–330. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-2-292 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  13. Schorn, A., Hess, L., & Strauß, N. (2025). Influencers going green: How exhibited climate activism and message-sidedness affect the impact of greenfluencer posts. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(2), 268–291, https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-2-268 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  14. Schwarz, A., & Faj, T. (2025). Public versus individual autonomous mobility and the reference to science in the news media: Frames of risks, benefits, and governance in Germany from 2018 to early 2023. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(3), 421–455. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-3-421 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  15. Wurm, A., & Wimmer, J. (2024). Zwischen feministischer Selbstermächtigung und Ausverkauf emotionaler Intimität: Eine qualitative Inhaltsanalyse der deutschen Berichterstattung über OnlyFans von 2020 bis 2023. Studies in Communication and Media, 13(4), 401–429. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2024-4-401 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  16. Zabel, C., Schaffeld, L., & O’Brien, D. (2025). Netflix and chill? The content-related and gratificational antecedents of binge-watching tendency. Studies in Communication and Media, 14(1), 105–139. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2025-1-105 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  17.   Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-1
  18. Almodt, R. (2023). From criticism to conspiracies: The populist discourse of COVID-19 sceptics in Germany’s Querdenken community on Telegram. Discourse & Society, 35(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265231191971 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  19. Bader, K., Müller, K., & Rinsdorf, L. (2023). Zwischen Staatsskepsis und Verschwörungsmythen. Eine Figurationsanalyse zur kommunikativen Konstruktion von Gegenöffentlichkeiten auf Telegram [Between state scepticism and conspirancy myths. A figuration analysis of communicative construction of counter publics on Telegram]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 71 (3–4), 248–265 https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2023-3-4-248 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  20. Boydstun, A. E., Bevan, S., & Thomas, H. F. (2014). The Importance of attention diversity and how to measure it. Policy Studies Journal, 42(2), 173–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12055 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  21. Broersma, M. (2019). Epilogue: Situating journalism in the digital: A plea for studying news flows, users, and materiality. In S.A. Eldrige, & B. Franklin (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Developments in Digital Journalism Studies (pp. 515–525). Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  22. Buehling, K., & Heft, A. (2023). Pandemic protesters on Telegram: How platform affordances and information ecosystems shape digital counterpublics. Social Media + Society, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231199430 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  23. de León, E., Makhortykh, M., & Adam, S. (2024). Hyperpartisan, alternative, and conspiracy media users: An anti-establishment portrait. Political Communication, 41(6), 877–902. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2024.2325426 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  24. de Vreese, C. H., Esser, F., Aalberg, T., Reinemann, C., & Stanyer, J. (2018). Populism as an expression of political communication content and style: A new perspective. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 23(4), 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161218790035 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  25. Frerebeau, N. (2023, November 28). Package ‘tabula’: Analysis and visualization of archaeological count data (version 3.0.1) [R package]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tabula Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  26. Hepp, A., Breiter, A., & Hasebrink, U. (2018). Rethinking transforming communications: An introduction. In A. Hepp, A. Breiter, & Uwe Hasebrink (Eds.), Communicative figurations. Transforming communications in times of deep mediatization (pp. 3–13). Palgrave McMillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65584-0_1 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  27. Hohlfeld, R., Bauerfeind, F., Braglia, I., Butt, A., Dietz, A-L., Drexel, D., Fedlmeier, J., Fischer, L., Gandl, V., Glaser, F., Haberzettel, E., Helling, T., Käsbauer, I., Kast, M., Krieger, A., Lächner, A., Malkanova, A., Raab, M-K., Rech, A., Weymar, P. (2021). Communicating COVID-19 against the backdrop of conspiracy ideologies: How public figures discuss the matter on facebook and telegram. (Working Paper No. 1/2021). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.36822.78406 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  28. Holzer, B. (2021). Zwischen Protest und Parodie: Strukturen der “Querdenken“-Kommunikation auf Telegram (und anderswo) [Between protest and parody: Structures of „Querdenken“ communication on Telegram (and elsewhere)]. In: S. Reichardt (Ed.), Die Misstrauensgemeinschaft der “Querdenker“. Die Corona-Proteste aus kultur- und sozialwissenschaftlicher Perspektive (pp. 125–157). Campus Verlag. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/9rgtk Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  29. Jost, P., & Dogruel, L. (2023). Radical mobilization in times of crisis: Use and effects of appeals and populist communication features in Telegram channels. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231186372 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  30. Langer, A. I., & Gruber, J. B. (2020). Political agenda setting in the hybrid media system: Why legacy media still matter a great deal. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 26(2), 313–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220925023 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  31. Meisner, C., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2022). Participatory branding on social media: The affordances of live streaming for creative labor. New Media & Society, 24(5), 1179–1195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820972392 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  32. Molyneux, L., & Holton, A. (2014). Branding (health) journalism: Perceptions, practices, and emerging norms. Digital Journalism, 3(2), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.906927 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  33. Rothut, S., Schulze, H., Hohner, J., & Rieger, D. (2023). Ambassadors of ideology: A conceptualization and computational investigation of far-right influencers, their networking structures, and communication practices. New Media & Society, 26(12), 7120–7147 https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231164409 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  34. Schulze, H., Hohner, J., Greipl, S., Girgnhuber, M., Desta, I. & Rieger, D. (2022). Far-right conspiracy groups on fringe platforms: A longitudinal analysis of radicalization dynamics on Telegram. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 28(4), 1103–1126. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565221104977 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  35. Schwarzenegger, C. (2021). Communities of darkness? Users and uses of anti-system alternative media between audience and community. Media and Communication, 9(1), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i1.3418 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  36. Staender, A., Humprecht, E., & Esser, F. (2024). Alternative media vary between mild distortion and extreme misinformation: Steps toward a typology. Digital Journalism, 12(6), 830–850. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2024.2326928 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  37. Stier, S., Mangold, F., Scharkow, M., & Breuer, J. (2021). Post post-broadcast democracy? News exposure in the age of online intermediaries. American Political Science Review, 116(2), 768–774. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421001222 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  38. Tebaldi C, Del Percio A. (2024). Branding the white nation: Platform capitalism and the semiotics of far-right organizing. Language in Society. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404524001040 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  39. Wimmer, J. (2014). Öffentlichkeit, Gegenöffentlichkeiten und Medienpartizipation im Zeitalter des Internets [Publics, counter publics, and media participation in times of the internet]. In: C. Schmitt & A. Vonderau (Eds.), Transnationalität und Öffentlichkeit. Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven (pp. 285–308). transcript. https://doi.org/10.14361/transcript.9783839421543.285 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  40. Zehring, M., & Domahidi, E. (2023). German corona protest mobilizers on Telegram and their relations to the far right: A network and topic analysis. Social Media + Society, 9(1), 205630512311551. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231155106 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  41. Zimmermann, F., & Kohring, M. (2020). Aktuelle Desinformation – Definition und Einordnung einer gesellschaftlichen Herausforderung [Current desinformation – Definition and contextulization of a societal challenge]. In: Ralf Hohlfeld (Ed.), Fake News und Desinformation (pp. 32–43). Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748901334 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  42.   Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-001
  43. Adam, S., & Maier, M. (2010). Personalization of politics: A critical review and agenda for research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 34(1), 213–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2010.11679101 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  44. Anter, L. (2024). How news organizations coordinate, select, and edit content for social media platforms: A systematic literature review. Journalism Studies, 25(9), 1095–1115. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2235428 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  45. Anter, L. (2025). How social media affordances shape journalistic content production: A stimulus-based interview study on journalists’ perceptions. Journalism. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849251337009 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  46. Arbaoui, B., De Swert, K., & van der Brug, W. (2020). Sensationalism in news coverage: A comparative study in 14 television systems. Communication Research, 47(2), 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216663364 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  47. Bastos, M. T. (2016). Digital journalism and tabloid journalism. In B. Franklin & S. A. Eldridge (Eds.), The Routledge companion to digital journalism studies (pp. 217–225). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315713793-22 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  48. Belair-Gagnon, V., Zamith, R., & Holton, A. E. (2020). Role orientations and audience metrics in newsrooms: An examination of journalistic perceptions and their drivers. Digital Journalism, 8(3), 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1709521 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  49. Bell, E. (2021). Do technology companies care about journalism? In A. Schiffrin (Ed.), Media capture: How money, digital platforms, and governments control the news (pp. 291–296). Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/schi18882-017 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  50. Berg, H. (2018). Wissenschaftsjournalismus zwischen Elfenbeinturm und Boulevard: Eine Langzeitanalyse der Wissenschaftsberichterstattung deutscher Zeitungen [Science journalism at the crossroads between ivory tower and boulevard: A long-term analysis of science journalism in German newspapers]. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21157-8 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  51. Blassnig, S., & Esser, F. (2022). The “audience logic” in digital journalism: An exploration of shifting news logics across media types and time. Journalism Studies, 23(1), 48–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.2000339 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  52. Blom, J. N., & Hansen, K. R. (2015). Click bait: Forward-reference as lure in online news headlines. Journal of Pragmatics, 76, 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.010 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  53. Brown, D. K., Harlow, S., García-Perdomo, V., & Salaverría, R. (2018). A new sensation? An international exploration of sensationalism and social media recommendations in online news publications. Journalism, 19(11), 1497–1516. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1464884916683549 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  54. Bucher, T., & Helmond, A. (2018). The affordances of social media platforms. In J. Burgess, A. Marwick, & T. Poell (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social media (pp. 233–253). SAGE. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  55. Cheng, Z., & Li, Y. (2024). Like, comment, and share on TikTok: Exploring the effect of sentiment and second-person view on the user engagement with TikTok news videos. Social Science Computer Review, 42(1), 201–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393231178603 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  56. Costera Meijer, I. (2020). Understanding the audience turn in journalism: From quality discourse to innovation discourse as anchoring practices 1995–2020. Journalism Studies, 21(16), 2326–2342. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2020.1847681 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  57. De León, E., & Trilling, D. (2021). A sadness bias in political news sharing? The role of discrete emotions in the engagement and dissemination of political news on Facebook. Social Media + Society, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211059710 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  58. Duckwitz, A. (2019). Influencer als digitale Meinungsführer: Wie Influencer in sozialen Medien den politischen Diskurs beeinflussen – und welche Folgen das für die demokratische Öffentlichkeit hat [Influencers as digital opinion leaders: How influencers shape political discourse in social media – and what consequences this has for the democratic public sphere]. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. https://collections.fes.de/publikationen/ident/fes/15736 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  59. Dvir-Gvirsman, S., & Tsuriel, K. (2022). In an open relationship: Platformization of relations between news practitioners and their audiences. Journalism Studies, 23(11), 1308–1326. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2022.2084144 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  60. Dvir-Gvirsman, S., Sude, D., & Raisman, G. (2024). Unpacking news engagement through the perceived affordances of social media: A cross-platform, cross-country approach. New Media & Society, 26(11), 6487–6509. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231154432. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  61. Eisenegger, M. (2021). Dritter, digitaler Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit als Folge der Plattformisierung [Third, digital transformation of the public sphere as a result of platformization]. In M. Eisenegger, M. Prinzing, P. Ettinger, & R. Blum (Eds.), Digitaler Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit (pp. 17–39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-32133-8_2 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  62. Esser, F. (1999). ‘Tabloidization’ of news: A comparative analysis of Anglo-American and German press journalism. European Journal of Communication, 14(3), 291–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323199014003001 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  63. Esser, F. (2013). Mediatization as a challenge: Media logic versus political logic. In H. Kriesi, S. Lavenex, F. Esser, J. Matthes, M. Bühlmann, & D. Bochsler (Eds.), Democracy in the age of globalization and mediatization (pp. 155–176). Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  64. Ferrer-Conill, R., & Tandoc, E. C. (2018). The audience-oriented editor: Making sense of the audience in the newsroom. Digital Journalism, 6(4), 436–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1440972 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  65. García-Perdomo, V., Salaverría, R., Brown, D. K., & Harlow, S. (2018). To share or not to share: The influence of news values and topics on popular social media content in the United States, Brazil, and Argentina. Journalism Studies, 19(8), 1180–1201. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1265896 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  66. Gibbs, M., Meese, J., Arnold, M., Nansen, B., & Carter, M. (2015). #Funeral and Instagram: Death, social media, and platform vernacular. Information, Communication & Society, 18(3), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.987152 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  67. Godulla, A., & Wolf, C. (2018). Digitales Storytelling: Nutzererwartungen, Usability, Produktionsbedingungen und Präsentation [Digital storytelling: User expectations, usability, production conditions and presentation]. In C. Nuernbergk & C. Neuberger (Eds.), Journalismus im Internet (pp. 81–100). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93284-2_3 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  68. Gruber, A., & Radü, J. (2022). Die Story-Funktion als Experimentierfeld für journalistische Innovation: Digitales Storytelling auf Instagram am Beispiel des SPIEGEL [The story feature as a field of experimentation for journalistic innovation: Digital storytelling on Instagram using the media outlet SPIEGEL as an example]. In J. Schützeneder & M. Graßl (Eds.), Journalismus und Instagram (pp. 259–270). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34603-4_17 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  69. Hågvar, Y. B. (2019). News media’s rhetoric on Facebook. Journalism Practice, 13(7), 853–872. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2019.1577163 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  70. Haim, M., Karlsson, M., Ferrer-Conill, R., Kammer, A., Elgesem, D., & Sjøvaag, H. (2021). You should read this study! It investigates Scandinavian social media logics ☝. Digital Journalism, 9(4), 406–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1886861 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  71. Hase, V., Boczek, K., & Scharkow, M. (2023). Adapting to affordances and audiences? A cross-platform, multi-modal analysis of the platformization of news on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter. Digital Journalism, 11(8), 1499–1520. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2128389 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  72. Hendrickx, J. (2023). The rise of social journalism: An explorative case study of a youth-oriented Instagram news account. Journalism Practice, 17(8), 1810–1825. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2021.2012500 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  73. Hendrickx, J. (2025). News #foryou on TikTok: A digital methods-based study. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990251328623 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  74. Hendrickx, J., & Vázquez-Herrero, J. (2024). Dissecting social media journalism: A comparative study across platforms, outlets and countries. Journalism Studies, 25(9), 1053–1075. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2024.2324318 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  75. Hermida, A., & Mellado, C. (2020). Dimensions of social media logics: Mapping forms of journalistic norms and practices on Twitter and Instagram. Digital Journalism, 8(7), 864–884. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1805779 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  76. Jandura, O., & Friedrich, K. (2014). The quality of political media coverage. In C. Reinemann (Ed.), Political communication (pp. 351–374). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238174.351 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  77. Karlsson, M. B. (2016). Goodbye politics, hello lifestyle: Changing news topics in tabloid, quality and local newspaper websites in the U.K. and Sweden from 2002 to 2012. Observatorio, 10(4), 150–165. https://doi.org/10.15847/obsOBS1042016940 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  78. Kaye, D. B. V., Zeng, J., & Wikström, P. (2022). TikTok: Creativity and culture in short video. Polity Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  79. Keyling, T. (2017). Kollektives Gatekeeping. Die Herstellung von Publizität in Social Media [Collective gatekeeping: The creation of visibility on social media]. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-16686-1 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  80. Klein, M., Magin, M., Riedl, A. A., Udris, L., & Stark, B. (2025). From news softening to social news softening: Comparing patterns of political news coverage on different (social) media channels in Germany and Switzerland. Digital Journalism, 13(6), 1089–1111. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2023.2278044 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  81. Lamot, K. (2022). What the metrics say: The softening of news on the Facebook pages of mainstream media outlets. Digital Journalism, 10(4), 517–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1974917 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  82. Lamot, K., Kreutz, T., & Opgenhaffen, M. (2022). “We rewrote this title”: How news headlines are remediated on Facebook and how this affects engagement. Social Media + Society, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221114827 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  83. Leaver, T., Highfield, T., & Abidin, C. (2020). Instagram: Visual social media cultures. Polity Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  84. Lee, A. Y, Mieczkowski, H., Ellison, N. B., & Hancook, J. T. (2022). The algorithmic crystal: Conceptualizing the self through algorithmic personalization on TikTok [Conference paper]. CSCW 22, Taipei, Taiwan Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  85. Lefkowitz, J. (2018). “Tabloidization” or dual-convergence: Quoted speech in tabloid and “quality” British newspapers 1970–2010. Journalism Studies, 19(3), 353–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1190662 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  86. Lewis, S. C., & Molyneux, L. (2018). A decade of research on social media and journalism: Assumptions, blind spots, and a way forward. Media and Communication, 6(4), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v6i4.1562 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  87. Lischka, J. A. (2021). Logics in social media news making: How social media editors marry the Facebook logic with journalistic standards. Journalism, 22(2), 430–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918788472 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  88. Lischka, J. A., & Garz, M. (2023). Clickbait news and algorithmic curation: A game theory framework of the relation between journalism, users, and platforms. New Media & Society, 25(8), 2073–2094. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211027174 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  89. Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  90. Magin, M. (2019). Attention, please! Structural influences on tabloidization of campaign coverage in German and Austrian elite newspapers (1949–2009). Journalism, 20(12), 1704–1724. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917707843 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  91. Meier-Vieracker, S. (2025). Überschreibungen: Multimodale Metaphern auf TikTok [Overwritings: Multimodal metaphors on TikTok]. In F. Fischer, S. Meier-Vieracker, & L. Niendorf (Eds.), TikTok–Memefication und Performance (pp. 47–66). J. B. Metzler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-70712-8_3 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  92. Negreira-Rey, M.-C., Vázquez-Herrero, J., & López-García, X. (2022). Blurring boundaries between journalists and TikTokers: Journalistic role performance on TikTok. Media and Communication, 10(1), 146–156. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i1.4699 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  93. Newman, N. (2022). How publishers are learning to create and distribute news on TikTok. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/how-publishers-are-learning-create-and-distribute-news-tiktok Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  94. Newman, N., Ross Arguedas, A., Robertson, C. T., Nielsen, R. K., & Fletcher, R (2025). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2025. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2025 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  95. Örnebring, H., & Jönsson, A. M. (2004). Tabloid journalism and the public sphere: A historical perspective on tabloid journalism. Journalism Studies, 5(3), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670042000246052 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  96. Otto, L., Glogger, I., & Boukes, M. (2017). The softening of journalistic political communication: A comprehensive framework model of sensationalism, soft news, infotainment, and tabloidization. Communication Theory, 27(2), 136–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12102 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  97. Peterson-Salahuddin, C., & Diakopoulos, N. (2020). Negotiated autonomy: The role of social media algorithms in editorial decision making. Media and Communication, 8(3), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i3.3001 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  98. Poell, T., Nieborg, D. B., & Duffy, B. E. (2023). Spaces of negotiation: Analyzing platform power in the news industry. Digital Journalism, 11(8), 1391–1409. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2103011 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  99. Poell, T., Nieborg, D., & Van Dijck, J. (2019). Platformisation. Internet Policy Review, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1425 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  100. Rashidian, N., Tsiveriotis, G., Brown, P., Bell, E., & Hartstone, A. (2020). Platforms and publishers: The end of an era. Tow Center for Digital Journalism. https://doi.org/10.7916/d8-sc1s-2j58 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  101. Reinemann, C., Stanyer, J., Scherr, S., & Legnante, G. (2012). Hard and soft news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911427803 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  102. Ronzhyn, A., Cardenal, A. S., & Rubio, A. B. (2023). Defining affordances in social media research: A literature review. New Media & Society, 25(11), 3165–3188. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221135187 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  103. Russmann, U., & Svensson, J. (2017). Introduction to visual communication in the age of social media: Conceptual, theoretical and methodological challenges. Media and Communication, 5(4), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v5i4.1263 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  104. Salgado, S., & Bobba, G. (2019). News on events and social media: A comparative analysis of Facebook users’ reactions. Journalism Studies, 20(15), 2258–2276. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2019.1586566 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  105. Schellewald, A. (2023). Understanding the popularity and affordances of TikTok through user experiences. Media, Culture & Society, 45(8), 1568–1582. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437221144562 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  106. Schneiders, P., & Stark, B. (2025). Ensuring news quality in platformized news ecosystems: Shortcomings and recommendations for an epistemic governance. Media and Communication, 13. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.10042 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  107. Scott, K. (2021). You won’t believe what’s in this paper! Clickbait, relevance and the curiosity gap. Journal of Pragmatics, 175, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.12.023 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  108. Sehl, A., Eder, M., & Kretzschmar, S. (2022). Journalismus auf Instagram: Qualität neu definiert? [Journalism on Instagram: Redefining (news) quality?] In J. Schützeneder & M. Graßl (Eds.), Journalismus und Instagram (pp. 45–58). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34603-4_4 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  109. Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02843.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  110. Simon, F. M. (2022). Uneasy bedfellows: AI in the news, platform companies and the issue of journalistic autonomy. Digital Journalism, 10(10), 1832–1854. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2063150 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  111. Sparks, C. (2000). Introduction: The panic over tabloid news. In C. Sparks & J. Tulloch (Eds.), Tabloid tales: Global debates over media standards (pp. 1–40). Rowman & Littlefield. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  112. Steiner, M. (2020). Soft presentation of hard news? A content analysis of political Facebook posts. Media and Communication, 8(3), 244–257. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i3.3152 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  113. Tenenboim, O. (2020). News engagement logics: Examining practices of media outlets and their audiences on social networking sites [Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin]. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/85419/TENENBOIM-DISSERTATION-2020.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  114. Tenenboim, O. (2023). Media production logics in triple-party news-spaces: A five-dimensional framework. Digital Journalism, 11(7), 1250–1269. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2105244 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  115. Thorson, K., & Wells, C. (2016). Curated flows: A framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory, 26(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12087 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  116. Trilling, D., Tolochko, P., & Burscher, B. (2017). From newsworthiness to shareworthiness: How to predict news sharing based on article characteristics. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(1), 38–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016654682 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  117. Van Aelst, P., Sheafer, T., & Stanyer, J. (2012). The personalization of mediated political communication: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, 13(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911427802 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  118. Van Aelst, P., Strömbäck, J., Aalberg, T., Esser, F., de Vreese, C., Matthes, J., Hopmann, D., Salgado, S., Hubé, N., Stępińska, A., Papathanassopoulos, S., Berganza, R., Legnante, G., Reinemann, C., Sheafer, T., & Stanyer, J. (2017). Political communication in a high-choice media environment: A challenge for democracy? Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  119. Van Dijck, J., & Poell, T. (2013). Understanding social media logic. Media and Communication, 1(1), 2–14. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v1i1.70 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  120. Vázquez-Herrero, J., Direito-Rebollal, S., & López-García, X. (2019). Ephemeral journalism: News distribution through Instagram stories. Social Media + Society, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119888657 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  121. Vázquez-Herrero, J., Negreira-Rey, M.-C., & López-García, X. (2022). Let’s dance the news! How the news media are adapting to the logic of TikTok. Journalism, 23(8), 1717–1735. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920969092 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  122. Vázquez-Herrero, J., Negreira-Rey, M.-C., & Rodríguez-Vázquez, A.-I. (2021). Intersections between TikTok and TV: Channels and programmes thinking outside the box. Journalism and Media, 2(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia2010001 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  123. Vermeer, S., Trilling, D., Kruikemeier, S., & de Vreese, C. (2020). Online news user journeys: The role of social media, news websites, and topics. Digital Journalism, 8(9), 1114–1141. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1767509 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  124. Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2018). The emotional architecture of social media. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self and platforms, stories, connections (pp. 77–93). Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  125. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315193434-6 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  126. Wahl-Jorgensen, K., & Schmidt, T. R. (2019). News and storytelling. In K. Wahl-Jorgensen & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), The Handbook of Journalism Studies (pp. 261–276). Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  127. Walters, P. (2022). Reclaiming control: How journalists embrace social media logics while defending journalistic values. Digital Journalism, 10(9), 1482–1501. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2021.1942113 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  128. Weiß, R., Magin, M., Hasebrink, U., Jandura, O., Seethaler, J., & Stark, B. (2016). Publizistische Qualität im medialen Wandel – eine normativ begründete Standortbestimmung [Journalistic quality in a shifting media landscape – a normative standpoint]. In P. Werner, L. Rinsdorf, T. Pleil, & K.-D. Altmeppen (Eds.), Verantwortung – Gerechtigkeit – Öffentlichkeit: Normativität in den Medien und in der Kommunikationswissenschaft (pp. 27–49). UVK. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  129. Welbers, K., & Opgenhaffen, M. (2019). Presenting news on social media. Digital Journalism, 7(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1493939 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  130. Wirz, D., & Zai, F. (2024). Politischer Journalismus auf Instagram: Informations- und Unterhaltungspotenzial Schweizer Nachrichtenmedien [Political journalism on Instagram: Information and entertainment potential of Swiss news media] In C. Nuernbergk, N. F. Schumacher, J. Haßler, & J. Schützeneder (Hrsg.), Politischer Journalismus: Konstellationen - Muster - Dynamiken (pp. 259–276). Nomos https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748939702-259 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  131. Wirz, D. S., Zai, F., Vogler, D., Urman, A., & Eisenegger, M. (2023). Die Qualität von ­Schweizer Medien auf Instagram und TikTok [The quality of Swiss media on Instagram and TikTok]. In fög – Forschungszentrum Öffentlichkeit und Gesellschaft/Universität Zürich (Ed.), Jahrbuch Qualität der Medien 2023 (pp. 47–61). Schwabe. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  132. Wojcieszak, M., Menchen-Trevino, E., Goncalves, J. F. F., & Weeks, B. (2022). Avenues to news and diverse news exposure online: Comparing direct navigation, social media, news aggregators, search queries, and article hyperlinks. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(4), 860–886. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211009160 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  133. Wunderlich, L., Hölig, S., & Hasebrink, U. (2022). Does journalism still matter? The role of journalistic and non-journalistic sources in young peoples’ news related practices. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 27(3), 569–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 19401612211072547 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  134. Zulli, D., & Zulli, D. J. (2022). Extending the Internet meme: Conceptualizing technological mimesis and imitation publics on the TikTok platform. New Media & Society, 24(8), 1872–1890. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820983603 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  135.   Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-002
  136. Adam, S. (2008). Medieninhalte aus der Netzwerkperspektive: Neue Erkenntnisse durch die Kombination von Inhalts- und Netzwerkanalyse. Publizistik, 53(2), 180–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-008-0074-x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  137. Anter, L. (2021). Mein Text, meine Meinung, meine Wissenschaftlerin? Eine qualitative Untersuchung zur Nutzung von Wissenschaftler*innen als opportune Zeugen. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 69(3), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2021-3-397 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  138. Bachl, M., & Vögele, C. (2013). Guttenbergs Zeugen? Eine Replikation und Erweiterung von Hagens (1992) „Die opportunen Zeugen“ anhand der Berichterstattung über Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg im Kontext der Plagiatsaffäre. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 61(3), 345–367. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634x-2013-3-345 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  139. Beck, K. (2001). Medienberichterstattung über Medienkonzentration: Journalistische Strategien am Fallbeispiel der Fusion von AOL und Time Warner. Publizistik, 46(4), 403–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-001-0121-3 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  140. Brettschneider, F., & Wagner, B. (2008). „And the winner should be...“: Explizite und implizite Wahlempfehlungen in der Bild-Zeitung und der Sun. In B. Pfetsch & S. Adam (Hrsg.), Massenmedien als politische Akteure (S. 225–244). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90843-4_10 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  141. Campos Rueda, M. (2023). Influence of public service media consumption on citizens’ perceptions of the need for public media: The moderating role of political ideology. International Journal of Communication, 17, 3844–3864. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  142. Cushion, S. (2019). Journalism under (ideological) threat: Safeguarding and enhancing public service media into the 21st century. Journalism, 20(1), 69–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918807036 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  143. Deutschlandfunk. (2022, 26. August). Der Fall Schlesinger: Öffentlich-Rechtliche in der Kritik. https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/schlesinger-rbb-faq-100.html#kurz Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  144. Donders, K., & Bulck, H. V. D. (2013). Scratching the surface of the “digital argument” in contemporary public service media debates: The case of the management contract negotiations in Flanders. In M. Löblich & S. Pfaff-Rüdiger (Hrsg.), Communication and media policy in the era of the Internet (S. 81–95). Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845243214-81 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  145. Engelmann, I. (2009). Frames und Positionen zur EU-Osterweiterung: Eine Argument- und Framing-Analyse ausgewählter EU-Beitritte. Publizistik, 54(1), 82–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-009-0021-5 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  146. fög. (2015). Abstimmungsmonitor: Vorlagen vom 14. Juni 2015 [Voting Monitor: Submissions of June 14, 2015]. http://www.foeg.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:00000000-0777-18fa-ffff-ffffbbe1f70e/Abstimmungsmonitor_Juni_2015.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  147. fög. (2018). Abstimmungsmonitor: Vorlagen vom 4. März 2018. https://www.foeg.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:0a7ad23e-d48b-48f8-92cb-2acb88a7e29d/Abstimmungsmonitor_M%C3% A4rz_2018.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  148. Früh, W. (2017). Inhaltsanalyse: Theorie und Praxis (9., überarbeitete Auflage). UVK. https://doi.org/10.36198/9783838547350 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  149. Geiß, S. (2017). Scandalization. In P. Rössler, C. A. Hoffner, & L. Zoonen (Hrsg.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects (1. Aufl., S. 1–11). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0198 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  150. Haarkötter, H., & Kalmuk, F. (2021). Medienjournalismus in Deutschland: Seine Leistungen und blinden Flecken (OBS-Arbeitsheft Nr. 105). Otto Brenner Stiftung. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  151. Hagen, L. M. (1992). Die opportunen Zeugen: Konstruktionsmechanismen von Bias in der Zeitungsberichterstattung über die Volkszählungsdiskussion. Publizistik, 37(4), 444–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03654310 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  152. Herzog, C., Hilker, H., Novy, L., & Torun, O. (Hrsg.). (2018). Transparency and funding of public service media: Die deutsche Debatte im internationalen Kontext. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17997-7 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  153. Jäkel, J., Huber, P. M., Cole, M. D., Exner, M., Klass, N., Reitz, B., Sehl, A., & de Weck, R. (2024). Bericht des Rates für die zukünftige Entwicklung des öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunks. https://rundfunkkommission.rlp.de/fileadmin/rundfunkkommission/Dokumente/Zukunftsrat/ZR_Bericht_18.1.2024.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  154. Jakubowicz, K. (2011). Public service broadcasting: Product (and victim?) of public policy. In R. Mansell & M. Raboy (Hrsg.), The Handbook of global media and communication policy (1. Aufl., S. 210–229). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444395433.ch13 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  155. Janssen, J., & Laatz, W. (2013). Statistische Datenanalyse mit SPSS. Springer Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32507-6_33 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  156. Jarren, O. (1998). Medienpolitische Kommunikation. In O. Jarren, U. Sarcinelli, & U. Saxer (Hrsg.), Politische Kommunikation in der demokratischen Gesellschaft (S. 616–629). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80348-1_54 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  157. Jarren, O., & Vogel, M. (2011). „Leitmedien“ als Qualitätsmedien: Theoretisches Konzept und Indikatoren. In R. Blum, H. Bonfadelli, K. Imhof, & O. Jarren (Hrsg.), Krise der Leuchttürme öffentlicher Kommunikation (S. 17–29). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93084-8_2 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  158. Karppinen, K., & Ala-Fossi, M. (2018). Finland: Maintaining the fragile consensus. In C. Herzog, H. Hilker, L. Novy, & O. Torun (Hrsg.), Transparency and funding of public service media: Die deutsche Debatte im internationalen Kontext (S. 107–117). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17997-7_9 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  159. Kemner, B., Scherer, H., & Weinacht, S. (2008). Unter der Tarnkappe: Der Einsatz „volatiler Themen“ und „opportuner Zeugen“ in der Berichterstattung zum Übernahmeversuch der ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG durch den Springer-Verlag. Publizistik, 53(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-008-0006-9 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  160. Kepplinger, H. M. (2011). Instrumentelle Aktualisierung. In H. M. Kepplinger (Hrsg.), Journalismus als Beruf (S. 149–167). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92915-6_8 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  161. Kepplinger, H. M., Brosius, H.-B., & Staab, J. F. (1991). Instrumental actualization: A theory of mediated conflicts. European Journal of Communication, 6(3), 263–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323191006003002 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  162. Kepplinger, M. (2018). Medien und Skandale. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21394-7 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  163. Kösters, R., Jandura, O., Weiß, R., & Schreiber, J. (2021). Diskursallianzen in der Migrationsdebatte? Politischer Parallelismus zwischen Medien und Parteien im Framing der Flucht- und Asylmigration im Jahr 2018. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 62(3), 461–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-021-00324-z Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  164. Krüger, U. M., & Müller-Sachse, K. H. (1998). Medienjournalismus. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-07688-9 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  165. Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Hrsg.), The communication of ideas (S. 37–51). Harper. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  166. Lichtenstein, D. (2011). Kommerzialisierung des Medienjournalismus? Eine empirische Untersuchung zum „Fall Berliner Zeitung“. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 59(2), 216–234. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634x-2011-2-216 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  167. Löblich, M. (2011). Frames in der medienpolitischen Öffentlichkeit: Die Presseberichterstattung über den 12. Rundfunkänderungsstaatsvertrag. Publizistik, 56(4), 423–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-011-0129-2 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  168. Lüter, A. (2004). Politische Profilbildung jenseits der Parteien? Redaktionelle Linien in Kommentaren deutscher Qualitätszeitungen. In C. Eilders, F. Neidhardt, & B. Pfetsch, Die Stimme der Medien (S. 167–195). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80557-7_7 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  169. Maier, D., & Dogruel, L. (2016). Akteursbeziehungen in der Zeitungsberichterstattung über die Online-Aktivitäten des öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunks. Publizistik, 61(2), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-016-0258-8 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  170. Maurer, T., Vogelgesang, J., Weiß, M., & Weiß, H.-J. (2008). Aktive oder passive Berichterstatter? Die Rolle der Massenmedien während des Kosovo-, Afghanistan- und Irakkriegs. In B. Pfetsch & S. Adam (Hrsg.), Massenmedien als politische Akteure (S. 144–167). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90843-4_7 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  171. NDR. (2022, 7. September). Neue Vorwürfe gegen NDR SH: Verantwortliche von Aufgaben entbunden. https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/schleswig-holstein/Neue-Vorwuerfe-gegen-NDR-SH-Verantwortliche-von-Aufgaben-entbunden,ndrsh104.html Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  172. Page, B. I. (1996). The mass media as political actors. PS: Political Science & Politics, 29(1), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/420185 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  173. Pfetsch, B., & Adam, S. (2008). Die Akteursperspektive in der politischen Kommunikationsforschung: Fragestellungen, Forschungsparadigmen und Problemlagen. In B. Pfetsch & S. Adam (Hrsg.), Massenmedien als politische Akteure (S. 9–26). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90843-4_1 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  174. Scheufele, B., Jost, A., & Spachmann, K. (2023). Krisendeutungen: Die aktuelle Medien­debatte um den öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunk. Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/978 3748938378 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  175. Scholl, A. (2016). Die Logik qualitativer Methoden in der Kommunikationswissenschaft. In S. Averbeck-Lietz & M. Meyen (Hrsg.), Handbuch nicht standardisierte Methoden in der Kommunikationswissenschaft (S. 17–32). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-01656-2_2 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  176. Schultz, T., Ziegele, M., Jackob, N., Viehmann, C., Jakobs, I., Fawzi, N., Quiring, O., Schemer, C., & Stegmann, D. (2023). Medienvertrauen nach Pandemie und „Zeitenwende“. Mainzer Langzeitstudie Medienvertrauen 2022. Media Perspektiven, 8, 1–17. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  177. Schulz, A., Levy, D. A. L., & Nielsen, R. K. (2019). Old, educated, and politically diverse: The audience of public service news. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2019-09/The_audience_of_public_service_news_FINAL.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  178. Sehl, A., Fletcher, R., & Picard, R. G. (2020). Crowding out: Is there evidence that public service media harm markets? A cross-national comparative analysis of commercial television and online news providers. European Journal of Communication, 35(4), 389–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323120903688 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  179. Stumvoll, M., & Vögele, C. (2021). Ein Foto und seine Folgen – der Fall Mesut Özil: Eine quantitative Inhaltsanalyse der Berichterstattung. Journal für Sportkommunikation und Mediensport, 5(1–2), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.11585/JSKMS.2020.1-2.15-30 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  180. Teschendorf, V. S., Kruß, M., Otto, K., & Rusch, R. (2024). Deficits and biases in the leading German press coverage of the Greek sovereign debt crisis. Communications. 49(4), 669–691. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2022-0064 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  181. Urbániková, M., Goyanes, M., & Smejkal, K. (2025). Understanding the willingness to pay for public service media: Testing the role of socio-political trust and partisan selective exposure. Journalism, Online-Vorabpublikation. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849251 339823 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  182. Uzelman, S., Hackett, R., & Stewart, J. (2005). Covering democracy’s forum: Canadian press treatment of public and private broadcasting. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 22(2), 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393180500072053” Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  183. Weiß, H.-J. (1985). Die Tendenz der Berichterstattung und Kommentierung der Tagespresse zur Neuordnung des Rundfunkwesens in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Media Perspektiven, 12 845–863. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  184.   Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003
  185. Anter, L. (2021). Mein Text, meine Meinung, meine Wissenschaftlerin? Eine qualitative Untersuchung zur Nutzung von Wissenschaftler*innen als opportune Zeugen [My text, my opinion, my scientist? A qualitative study on the use of scientists as opportune witnesses]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 69(3), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2021-3-397 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003-1
  186. Campos Rueda, M. (2023). Influence of public service media consumption on citizens’ perceptions of the need for public media: The moderating role of political ideology. International Journal of Communication, 17, 3844–3864. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003-1
  187. Hagen, L. M. (1992). Die opportunen Zeugen: Konstruktionsmechanismen von Bias in der Zeitungsberichterstattung über die Volkszählungsdiskussion [The opportune witnesses: Construction mechanisms of bias in newspaper reporting on the census debate]. Publizistik, 37(4), 444–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03654310 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003-1
  188. Kemner, B., Scherer, H., & Weinacht, S. (2008). Unter der Tarnkappe: Der Einsatz „volatiler Themen“ und „opportuner Zeugen“ in der Berichterstattung zum Übernahmeversuch der ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG durch den Springer-Verlag [In disguise: The use of „volatile issues“ and „opportune witnesses“ in the media coverage of the attempted takeover of the ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG by Springer]. Publizistik, 53(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-008-0006-9 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003-1
  189. Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas (pp. 37–51). Harper. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003-1
  190. Scheufele, B., Jost, A., & Spachmann, K. (2023). Krisendeutungen: Die aktuelle Mediendebatte um den öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunk [Interpreting crises: The current media debate on public service broadcasting]. Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748938378 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003-1
  191. Schulz, A., Levy, D. A. L., & Nielsen, R. K. (2019). Old, educated, and politically diverse: The audience of public service news. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2019-09/The_audience_of_public_service_news_FINAL.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003-1
  192. Sehl, A., Fletcher, R., & Picard, R. G. (2020). Crowding out: Is there evidence that public service media harm markets? A cross-national comparative analysis of commercial television and online news providers. European Journal of Communication, 35(4), 389–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323120903688 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003-1
  193.   Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-003-1
  194. Aberson, C. L. (2015). Positive intergroup contact, negative intergroup contact, and threat as predictors of cognitive and affective dimensions of prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18(6), 743–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214556699 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  195. Aberson, C. L., & Haag, S. C. (2007). Contact, perspective taking, and anxiety as predictors of stereotype endorsement, explicit attitudes, and implicit attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207074726 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  196. Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Addison Wesley. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  197. Baden, C., & Springer, N. (2014). Com(ple)menting the news on the financial crisis: The contribution of news users’ commentary to the diversity of viewpoints in the public debate. European Journal of Communication, 29(5), 529–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323114538724 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  198. Banas, J. A., Bessarabova, E., & Massey, z. B. (2020). Meta-analysis on mediated contact and prejudice. Human Communication Research, 46(2–3), 120–160. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqaa004 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  199. Barlow, F. K., Paolini, S., Pedersen, A., Hornsey, M. J., Radke, H. R. M., Harwood, J., Rubin, M., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1629–1643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212457953 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  200. Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.105 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  201. Capozza, D., Falvo, R., Favara, I., & Trifiletti, E. (2013). The relationship between direct and indirect cross-group friendships and outgroup humanisation: Emotional and cognitive mediators. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 20(4), 383–397. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  202. Capozza, D., Falvo, R., Trifiletti, E., & Pagani, A. (2014). Cross-group friendships, extended contact, and humanity attributions to homosexuals. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 114, 276–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.698 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  203. Chen, G. M., & Lu, S. (2017). Online political discourse: Exploring differences in effects of civil and uncivil disagreement in news website comments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2016.1273922 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  204. Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  205. Doull, M., O’Connor, A. M., Welch, V., Tugwell, P., & Wells, G. A. (2017). Peer support strategies for improving the health and well‐being of individuals with chronic diseases. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005352.pub2 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  206. Dovidio, J. F., Eller, A., & Hewstone, M. (2011). Improving intergroup relations through direct, extended and other forms of indirect contact. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210390555 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  207. Dovidio, J. F., Love, A., Schellhaas, F. M. H., & Hewstone, M. (2017). Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 606–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217712052 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  208. Esses, V. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). The role of emotions in determining willingness to engage in intergroup contact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(9), 1202–1214. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672022812006 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  209. Finlay, K. A., & Stephan, W. G. (2000). Improving intergroup relations: The effects of empathy on racial attitudes 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(8), 1720–1737. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02464.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  210. Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 708–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.708 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  211. Galinsky, A. D., & Ku, G. (2004). The effects of perspective-taking on prejudice: The moderating role of self-evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(5), 594–604. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262802 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  212. Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 173–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01397.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  213. Graf, S., Paolini, S., & Rubin, M. (2014). Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact prevalence in five Central European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(6), 536–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2052 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  214. Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Lopez, G. E. (2004). The benefits of diversity in education for democratic citizenship. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00097.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  215. Harwood, J. (2010). The contact space: A novel framework for intergroup contact research. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(2), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09359520 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  216. Harwood, J., Hewstone, M., Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Tausch, N. (2013). Intergroup contact: An integration of social psychological and communication perspectives. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 55–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2013.11679126 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  217. Hässler, T., Ullrich, J., Bernardino, M., Shnabel, N., van Laar, C., Valdenegro, D., Sebben, S., Tropp, L. R., Visintin, E. P., González, R., Ditlmann, R. K., Abrams, D., Selvanathan, H. P., Branković, M., Wright, S., Zimmermann, J. von, Pasek, M., Aydin, A. L., Žeželj, I., . . . Ugarte, L. M. (2020). A large-scale test of the link between intergroup contact and support for social change. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(4), 380–386. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0815-z Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  218. Hayward, L. E., Tropp, L. R., Hornsey, M. J., & Barlow, F. K. (2017). Toward a comprehensive understanding of intergroup contact: Descriptions and mediators of positive and negative contact among majority and minority groups. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216685291 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  219. Hewstone, M., Lolliot, S., Swart, H., Myers, E., Voci, A., Al Ramiah, A., & Cairns, E. (2014). Intergroup contact and intergroup conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 20(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035582 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  220. Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social categorization, depersonalization, and group behavior. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology. Group Processes (pp. 56–85). Blackwell Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470998458.ch3 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  221. Jost, J. T., Chaikalis-Petritsis, V., Abrams, D., Sidanius, J., van der Toorn, J., & Bratt, C. (2012). Why men (and women) do and don’t rebel: Effects of system justification on willingness to protest. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211422544 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  222. Joyce, N., & Harwood, J. (2014). Improving intergroup attitudes through televised vicarious intergroup contact. Communication Research, 41(5), 627–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212447944 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  223. Kim, N., Fishkin, J. S., & Luskin, R. C. (2018). Intergroup contact in deliberative contexts: Evidence from deliberative polls. Journal of Communication, 68(6), 1029–1051. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy056 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  224. Kim, N., & Wojcieszak, M. (2018). Intergroup contact through online comments: Effects of direct and extended contact on outgroup attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.013 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  225. Lim, T., Neel, R., & Hehman, E. (2024). Intergroup contact is consistently associated with lower prejudice across group properties. Collabra: Psychology, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.127426 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  226. Malloy, T. H. (2014). National minorities between protection and empowerment: Towards a theory of empowerment. Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, 13(2), 11–29. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  227. Mastro, D. (2015). Why the media’s role in issues of race and ethnicity should be in the spotlight. Journal of Social Issues, 71(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12093 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  228. Mastro, D., Behm-Morawitz, E., & Ortiz, M. (2007). The cultivation of social perceptions of Latinos: A mental models approach. Media Psychology, 9(2), 347–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260701286106 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  229. Mazziotta, A., Mummendey, A., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Vicarious intergroup contact effects. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210390533 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  230. Mazziotta, A., Rohmann, A., Wright, S. C., Tezanos-Pinto, P. de, & Lutterbach, S. (2015). (How) does positive and negative extended cross-group contact predict direct cross-group contact and intergroup attitudes? European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(5), 653–667. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2110 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  231. Menke, M., Wagner, A., & Kinnebrock, S. (2020). Communicative care in online forums: how burdened informal caregivers seek mediated social support. International Journal of Communication, 14, 1662–1682. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/12479 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  232. Mutz, D. C., & Goldman, S. K. (2010). Mass media. In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. M. Esses (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination (pp. 1–19). SAGE Publications. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  233. Nagda, B. A., & Zúñiga, X. (2003). Fostering meaningful racial engagement through intergroup dialogues. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006001015 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  234. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., Levy, D., & Nielsen, R. K. (2016). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2016. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/research/files/Digital%2520News%2520Report%25202016.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  235. Ortiz, M., & Harwood, J. (2007). A social cognitive theory approach to the effects of mediated intergroup contact on intergroup attitudes. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51(4), 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150701626487 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  236. Paluck, E. L. (2010). Is it better not to talk? Group polarization, extended contact, and perspective taking in the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(9), 1170–1185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210379868 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  237. Paolini, S., Harwood, J., Logatchova, A., Rubin, M., & Mackiewicz, M. (2021). Emotions in intergroup contact: Incidental and integral emotions’ effects on interethnic bias are moderated by emotion applicability and subjective agency. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.588944 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  238. Park, S. Y. (2012). Mediated intergroup contact: Concept explication, synthesis, and application. Mass Communication and Society, 15(1), 136–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.558804 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  239. Pettigrew, T. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.12.002 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  240. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  241. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  242. Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  243. Schaller, S., Wiedicke, A., Reifegerste, D., & Temmann, L. J. (2023). (De)Stigmatizing depression on social media: The role of responsibility frames. Journal of Health Communication, 28(11), 757–767. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2023.2266702 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  244. Schemer, C. (2014). Media effects on racial attitudes: Evidence from a three-wave panel survey in a political campaign. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26(4), 531–542. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edt041 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  245. Spears, R. (2009). Four degrees of stereotype formation: Differentiation by any means necessary. In C. McGarty, V. Y. Yzerbyt, & R. Spears (Eds.), Stereotypes as Explanations (pp. 127–156). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489877.008 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  246. Stephan, W. G., & Finlay, K. (1999). The role of empathy in improving intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55(4), 729–743. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00144 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  247. Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Morrison, K. R. (2009). Intergroup threat theory. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination (pp. 43–60). Psychology Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  248. Stroud, N. J., van Duyn, E., & Peacock, C. (2016). News commenters and news comment readers. Engaging News Project. Retrieved from https://mediaengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ENP-News-Commenters-and-Comment-Readers1.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  249. Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  250. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). In: W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–37). Brooks/Cole. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  251. Tone, E. B., & Tully, E. C. (2014). Empathy as a “risky strength”: A multilevel examination of empathy and risk for internalizing disorders. Development and Psychopathology, 26(402), 1547–1565. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579414001199 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  252. Vescio, T. K., Sechrist, G. B., & Paolucci, M. P. (2003). Perspective taking and prejudice reduction: The mediational role of empathy arousal and situational attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(4), 455–472. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.163 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  253. Vezzali, L., Hewstone, M., Capozza, D., Giovannini, D., & Wölfer, R. (2014). Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact. European Review of Social Psychology, 25(1), 314–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2014.982948 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  254. Vezzali, L., Hewstone, M., Capozza, D., Trifiletti, E., & Di Bernardo, G. A. (2017). Improving intergroup relations with extended contact among young children: Mediation by intergroup empathy and moderation by direct intergroup contact. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 27(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2292 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  255. Weber, M., Viehmann, C., Ziegele, M., & Schemer, C. (2020). Online hate does not stay online – How implicit and explicit attitudes mediate the effect of civil negativity and hate in user comments on prosocial behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 106192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106192 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  256. Wojcieszak, M., & Azrout, R. (2016). I saw you in the news: Mediated and direct intergroup contact improve outgroup attitudes. Journal of Communication, 66(6), 1032–1060. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12266 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  257. Wojcieszak, M., & Warner, B. R. (2020). Can interparty contact reduce affective polarization? A systematic test of different forms of intergroup contact. Political Communication, 37(6), 789–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1760406 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  258. Xiao, R., & Li, S. (2024). The effect of positive inter-group contact on cooperation: The moderating role of individualism. Frontiers in Psychology, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1323710 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  259. Ziegele, M., Weber, M., Quiring, O., & Breiner, T. (2018). The dynamics of online news discussions: Effects of news articles and reader comments on users’ involvement, willingness to participate, and the civility of their contributions. Information, Communication & Society, 21(10), 1419–1435. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1324505 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-004
  260. Andalibi, N., Ozturk, P., & Forte, A. (2017). Sensitive self-disclosures, responses, and social support on Instagram: The case of #depression. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, 1485–1500. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998243 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  261. APA. (2021). APA guidelines for the optimal use of social media in professional psychological practice. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/guidelines-optimal-use-social-media.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  262. APA. (2024). Guidelines for the practice of telepsychology. https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/telepsychology Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  263. Avella, H. (2023). “TikTok ≠ therapy”: Mediating mental health and algorithmic mood disorders. New Media & Society, 26(10). https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221147284 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  264. BACP. (n.d.). Guidance on the use of social media. https://www.bacp.co.uk/membership/membership-policies/social-media/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  265. Baier, A. L. (2019). The ethical implications of social media: Issues and recommendations for clinical practice. Ethics & Behavior, 29(5), 341–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2018.1516148 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  266. Basch, C. H., Donelle, L., Fera, J., & Jaime, C. (2022). Deconstructing TikTok videos on mental health: Cross-sectional, descriptive content analysis. JMIR Formative Research, 6(5). https://doi.org/10.2196/38340 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  267. BDP. (2011). Guidelines for psychologists who contribute to the media. https://www.bdp-verband.de/fileadmin/user_upload/BDP/website/dokumente/PDF/Profession/Berufsethik/efpa_media_guidelines.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  268. BDP. (2023). Diagnosen in den sozialen Medien – Fachliche Positionen [Diagnoses on social media – Professional positions]. https://www.bdp-verband.de/aktuelles/detailansicht/diagnosen-in-den-sozialen-medien-fachliche-positionen Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  269. Bhargava, P., MacDonald, K., Newton, C., Lin, H., & Pennycook, G. (2023). How effective are TikTok misinformation debunking videos? Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-114 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  270. Borges-Tiago, M. T., Santiago, J., & Tiago, F. (2023). Mega or macro social media influencers: Who endorses brands better? Journal of Business Research, 157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113606 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  271. Brijnath, B., Protheroe, J., Mahtani, K. R., & Antoniades, J. (2016). Do web-based mental health literacy interventions improve the mental health literacy of adult consumers? Results from a systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(6). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5463 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  272. Bucher, T., & Helmond, A. (2017). The affordances of social media platforms. In J. Burgess, A. Marwick, & T. Poell (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social Media (pp. 233–253). SAGE. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  273. Chandra, R. (2019, June 26). 6 problems of “Instagram therapy”: Is it junk food or comfort food? Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-pacific-heart/201906/6-problems-instagram-therapy Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  274. Chen, J., & Wang, Y. (2021). Social media use for health purposes: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(5). https://doi.org/10.2196/17917 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  275. Creators Instagram. (2024). Stell dich vor und teile deine Lieblingsmomente [Introduce yourself and share your favorite moments]. https://creators.instagram.com/profile Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  276. Danielsen, H. E., Finserås, T. R., Andersen, A. I. O., Hjetland, G. J., Woodfin, V., & Skogen, J. C. (2024). Mirror, mirror on my screen: Focus on self-presentation on social media is associated with perfectionism and disordered eating among adolescents. Results from the “LifeOnSoMe”-study. BMC Public Health, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19317-9 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  277. DGPs. (2022). BERUFSETHISCHE RICHTLINIEN des Berufsverbandes Deutscher Psychologinnen und Psychologen e.V. und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie e.V. [Professional ethical guidelines of the professional association of German psychologists and the German Psychological Society]. https://www.dgps.de/die-dgps/aufgaben-und-ziele/berufsethische-richtlinien/ Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  278. Drude, K., & Messer-Engel, K. (2021). The development of social media guidelines for psychologists and for regulatory use. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 6(2), 388–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-020-00176-1 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  279. Evans, S.K., Pearce, K.E., Vitak, J., & Treem, J.W. (2017). Explicating affordances: A conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12180 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  280. Foulkes, L., & Andrews, J. L. (2023). Are mental health awareness efforts contributing to the rise in reported mental health problems? A call to test the prevalence inflation hypothesis. New Ideas in Psychology, 69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2023.101010 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  281. Gansner, M. (2022). Social media contagion in adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 61(10), 130–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2022.07.517 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  282. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1998). Grounded theory. Strategien qualitativer Sozialforschung: Original: Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago. Huber. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  283. Green, J. (2024). TikTok and the changing landscape of therapeutic digital spaces of care. Digital Geography and Society, 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diggeo.2023.100077 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  284. Greene, A.K., Brownstone, L.M., Dong, Y., Hunsicker, M.J., Cool, J., Maloul, E.K., & Norling, H.N. (2025). Instatherapy: A content analysis of psychotherapists’ Instagram posts and user engagement. Counselling Psychotherapy Research, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12877 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  285. Gust, B. (2024). Zielgruppenorientierte Kommunikation in Social Media [Target group-oriented communication in social media]. In C. Zerres (Ed.), Handbuch Social-Media-Marketing (pp. 1–13). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42282-0_33-1 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  286. Haeny, A. M. (2014). Ethical considerations for psychologists taking a public stance on controversial issues: The balance between personal and professional life. Ethics & Behavior, 24(4), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.860030 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  287. Harris, J., Atkinson, A., Mink, M., & Porcellato, L. (2021). Young people’s experiences and perceptions of youtuber-produced health content: Implications for health promotion. Health Education & Behavior, 48(2), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198120974964 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  288. Hayes, D., & Za’ba, N. (2022). What metrics of harm are being captured in clinical trials involving talking treatments for young people? A systematic review of registered studies on the ISRCTN. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 22(1), 108–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12407 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  289. Heimes, J. A. (2023). Therapeut*innen in sozialen Medien: Anwendung professioneller und ethischer Grundprinzipien auf den Raum der sozialen Medien [Therapists in social media: Applying professional and ethical principles to the realm of social media]. Psychotherapie-Wissenschaft, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.30820/1664-9583-2023-1-11 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  290. Heiss, R., Bode, L., Adisuryo, Z. M., Brito, L., Cuadra, A., Gao, P., Han, Y., Hearst, M., Huang, K., Kinyua, A., Lin, T., Ma, Y., Manion, T. O., Roh, Y., Salazar, A., Yue, S., & Zhang, P. (2024). Debunking mental health misperceptions in short-form social media videos: An experimental test of scientific credibility cues. Health Communication, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2023.2301201 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  291. Hynes, K.C., Triplett, N.T., & Kingzette, A. (2023). Incidental influencing: A thematic analysis of couple and family therapists’ experiences of professional social media. Contemporary Family Therapy, 45, 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-022-09658-1 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  292. Issaka, B., Aidoo, E.A.K., Wood, S.F., & Mohammed, F. (2024). “Anxiety is not cute” analysis of twitter users’ discourses on romanticizing mental illness. BMC Psychiatry, 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05663-w Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  293. Jacobson, J. (2020). You are a brand: Social media managers’ personal branding and “the future audience”. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 29(6), 715–727. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-03-2019-2299 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  294. June, S. (2019, June 26). Instagram therapists are the new Instagram poets. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/26/style/instagram-therapists.html Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  295. Kaluzeviciute, G. (2020). Social media and its impact on therapeutic relationships. British Journal of Psychotherapy, 36(2), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjp.12545 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  296. Knox, S., Connelly, J., Rochlen, A. B., Clinton, M., Butler, M., & Lineback, S. (2020). How therapists navigate Facebook with clients. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 14(4), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000267 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  297. Koinig, I. (2022). Picturing mental health on Instagram: Insights from a quantitative study using different content formats. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031608 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  298. Kolmes, K., & Taube, D. O. (2016). Client discovery of psychotherapist personal information online. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 47(2), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000065 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  299. König, L., Hamer, T., & Suhr, R. (2023). Die psychische Gesundheitskompetenz der Bevölkerung in Deutschland [The mental health literacy of the population in Germany]. Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung. Vorab-Onlinepublikation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11553-023-01079-8 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  300. Kuckartz, U. (2018). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung [Qualitative Content Analysis: Methods, Practice, Computer Assistance]. Beltz. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  301. Latha, K., Meena, K. S., Pravitha, M. R., Dasgupta, M., & Chaturvedi, S. K. (2020). Effective use of social media platforms for promotion of mental health awareness. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 9. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_90_20 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  302. Lind, J., & Wickström, A. (2023). Representations of mental health and mental health problems in content published by female social media influencers. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 13678779231210583. https://doi.org/10.1177/13678779231210583 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  303. Mayring, P. (2022). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken [Qualitative Content Analysis: Basics and Techniques]. Beltz. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  304. McCarthy, K. (2019, July 03). Why people are turning to Instagram for therapy and mental health needs. Good Morning America. https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/wellness/story/people-turning-instagram-therapy-mental-health-64105639 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  305. Monteith, S., Glenn, T., Geddes, J. R., Whybrow, P. C., Achtyes, E. D., & Bauer, M. (2024). Implications of online self-diagnosis in psychiatry. Pharmacopsychiatry, 57(2), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2268-5441 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  306. Mühlig, S., & Jacobi, F. (2020). Psychoedukation [Psychoeducation]. In J. Hoyer & S. Knappe (Eds.), Lehrbuch. Klinische Psychologie & Psychotherapie (3rd ed., pp. 557–573). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-61814-1_22 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  307. Müller, T. (2024). Ergebnisse der ARD/ZDF-Medienstudie 2024. Zahl der Social-Media-Nutzenden steigt auf 60 Prozent [Results of the ARD/ZDF media study 2024: Number of social media users rises to 60 percent]. Media Perspektiven, 28, 1–8. https://www.media-perspektiven.de/fileadmin/user_upload/media-perspektiven/pdf/2024/MP_28_2024_ARD_ZDF-Medienstudie_2024._Zahl_der_Social-Media-Nutzenden_steigt_auf_60_Prozent_01.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  308. Naslund, J. A, Bondre, A., Torous, J., & Aschbrenner, K. A. (2020). Social media and mental health: Benefits, risks, and opportunities for research and practice. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 5(3), 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-020-00134-x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  309. Neumann, J., Steckling, T., Heimes, J., & Elsche, H. (2022). Social-Media-Profile in Psychotherapie, Beratung und Coaching: Soziale Medien professionell und ethisch nutzen [Social media profiles in psychotherapy, counseling, and coaching: Using social media professionally and ethically]. Beltz. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  310. Peterson, E. B., Gaysynsky, A., Chou, W. Y. S., & Rising, C. (2019). The role and impact of health literacy on peer-to-peer health communication. Information Services & Use, 39(1–2), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-180039 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  311. Pleiss, P. L. (2019, August 15). Warum sich auf Instagram plötzlich so viele Psychotherapeuten tummeln [Why so many psychotherapists are suddenly active on Instagram]. Welt. https://www.welt.de/kmpkt/article198442285/Warum-sich-auf-Instagram-ploetzlich-so-viele-Psychotherapeuten-tummeln.html Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  312. Pretorius, C., Chambers, D., & Coyle, D. (2019). Young people’s online help-seeking and mental health difficulties: Systematic narrative review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(11). https://doi.org/10.2196/13873 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  313. Pretorius, C., McCashin, D., & Coyle, D. (2022). Mental health professionals as influencers on TikTok and Instagram: What role do they play in mental health literacy and help-seeking? Internet Interventions, 30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2022.100591 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  314. PsychThG (2019). Gesetz über den Beruf der Psychotherapeutin und des Psychotherapeuten vom 15. November 2019 (BGBl. I S. 1604), zuletzt geändert durch Art. 17 G vom 19. Mai 2020 (BGBl. I S. 1018) [Law on the profession of psychotherapist, November 15, 2019 (Federal law gazette i p. 1604), last amended by art. 17 g of May 19, 2020 (Federal law gazette i p. 1018)]. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/psychthg_2020/BJNR160410019.html Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  315. Salaschek, M., & Bonfadelli, H. (2020). Digitale Gesundheitskommunikation: Kontext und Einflussfaktoren [Digital health communication and factors of influence]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 63(2), 160–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-019-03086-7 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  316. Samuel, H., Hassan, F., & Zaíane, O. (2021). The need for medical professionals to join patients in the online health social media discourse. Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies (BIOSTEC 2021) – HEALTHINF, 637–644. https://doi.org/10.5220/0010325806370644 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  317. Samuel, L., Kuijpers, K., & Bleakley, A. (2024). TherapyTok for depression and anxiety: A quantitative content analysis of high engagement Tiktok videos. Journal of Adolescent Health, 74(6), 1184–1190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2024.02.002 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  318. Schomerus, G., Spahlholz, J., & Speerforck, S. (2023). Die Einstellung der deutschen Bevölkerung zu psychischen Störungen [The attitudes of the German population towards mental disorders]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 66(4), 416–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-023-03679-3 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  319. Schreier, M. (2014). Ways of doing qualitative content analysis: disentangling terms and terminologies. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-15.1.2043 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  320. Slobogian, V., Giles, J., & Rent, T. (2017). #Boundaries: When patients become friends. Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal, 27(4), 394–396. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  321. Smith, K. M., Jones, A., & Hunter, E. A. (2023). Navigating the multidimensionality of social media presence: Ethical considerations and recommendations for psychologists. Ethics & Behavior, 33(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2021.1977935 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  322. Stevens, K., & Al-Abbadey, M. (2024). Compassion fatigue and global compassion fatigue in practitioner psychologists: A qualitative study. Current Psychology, 43(8), 7259–7274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04908-3 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  323. Strobl, L., Hübner, L., & Eichenberg, C. (2023). Psychodynamic psychotherapists online presence – Conceptual considerations & survey study. Psychodynamic Practice, 29(3), 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/14753634.2023.2195867 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  324. Triplett, N. T., Kingzette, A., Slivinski, L., & Niu, T. (2022). Ethics for mental health influencers: MFTs as public social media personalities. Contemporary Family Therapy, 44(2), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-021-09632-3 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  325. Tudehope, L., Harris, N., Vorage, L., & Sofija, E. (2024). What methods are used to examine representation of mental ill-health on social media? A systematic review. BMC Psychology, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01603-1 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  326. Utz, S., & Breuer, J. (2016). Informational benefits from social media use for professional purposes: Results from a longitudinal study. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2016-4-3 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  327. Vaz, A. M. d. A., & Mori, V. D. (2023). Configurações Subjetivas da Psicoterapia em sua Divulgação no Instagram: Reflexões sobre a Atuação do Psicoterapeuta [Subjective configurations of psychotherapy in its promotion on Instagram: Reflections on the role of the psychotherapist]. New Trends in Qualitative Research, 15. https://doi.org/10.36367/ntqr.15.2022.e759 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  328. VFP. (n.d.). Berufsordnung für die Freien Psychotherapeuten und Heilpraktiker für Psychotherapie [Professional code for independent psychotherapists and alternative practitioners for psychotherapy]. https://www.vfp.de/verband/berufsordnung Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  329. Vidamaly, S., & Lee, S. L. (2021). Young adults’ mental illness aesthetics on social media. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 11(2), 13–32. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCBPL.2021040102 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  330. Wardi-Zonna, K., Hardy, J. L., Sanders, E. M., & Hardy, R. M. (2020). Mental health professionals and the use of social media: Navigating ethical challenges. International Journal of Social Work Values & Ethics, 17(2), 68–77. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  331. White, E., & Hanley, T. (2023). Therapist + Social Media = Mental health influencer? Considering the research focusing upon key ethical issues around the use of social media by therapists. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 23(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12577 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  332. Williams, A. Z. (2019, August 17). We need to stop making mental illness look cool on social media. Vice. https://www.vice.com/en/article/a35de4/we-need-to-stop-making-mental-illness-look-cool-on-social-media Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  333. Windmüller, G. (2020). Wie Therapie-Influencer*innen auf Instagram über mentale Gesundheit aufklären [How therapy influencers educate about mental health on Instagram]. https://www.zeit.de/zett/2020-04/wie-therapie-influencerinnen-auf-instagram-ueber-mentale-gesundheit-aufklaeren-psyche-mental-health Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005
  334. Yaqub, T. (2022). 77.2 Psychiatric self-diagnoses and suspected social media contagion effects: What is the role of the child and adolescent psychiatrist? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 61(10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2022.07.439 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-005

Zitation

Download RIS Download BibTex

Downloads

Download Kapitel (PDF) Download kompl. Werk (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