WEEK 3 DISCUSION
PART 1 For this week's discussion, we will continue with your research hypothesis from last week.
Apply last week's feedback to your background paragraph and your hypothesis (H1 and Ho) and post them at the top of your response. Continue with the following:
- This week define and include an example of a sample based on your research. Include a description of the type of sampling to be used, the recruitment procedure, the population, and the sample.
Post your initial post by Wednesday and make sure to check back regularly to respond to questions and comments. You are required to respond to posts from your professor. Make sure to post to at least two peers with substantive feedback, questions, or insights. The discussion is an important part of the learning process in this class- Let's use it wisely! It is wonderful to let your peer know they are doing a great job or their topic is interesting, however, substantive feedback will help your peer in the development of their understanding of the material.
Present your work in APA style with primary and secondary source citations and references, as needed.
FEEDBACK FROM PEERS
Hello everyone ,
According to the recent longitudinal studies, the increased use of social media is characterized by the fact that the increased use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and hookah by adolescents are perceived by the individual as less harmful than cigarette use over time (Li et al., 2026). This result is based on previous studies that found that lower harm perception correlates with heightened vulnerability to tobacco product initiation in adolescents, and such vulnerability is especially high in non-users of any tobacco product (Parker et al., 2018). Li et al. (2026) however clearly stated that their research only assessed perception of harm, but made no attempt to determine whether these perceptional changes actually lead to subsequent tobacco use behaviour, and so the actual relevance of the perception change by itself was not established.
Likewise, Stanton et al. (2022) discovered that exposure to e-cigarette marketing in adolescents predicted the change in harm perception and subsequent use, but they also requested additional studies that consider how perception change mediates exposure to behavior and not exposure to use through some other, unquantified, pathway. Collectively, this literature raises an unanswered and significant question: in adolescents who already perceive e-cigarettes as relatively less harmful than cigarettes, does that perception predict the extent to which they will subsequently use e-cigarettes, or rather is it an indication of a belief that is co-occurring with use, not necessarily because of that perception. An answer to this question would help shed light on whether harm perception is a valuable early prevention target, or merely one of many symptoms of a larger trend of risk taking among adolescents.
2. Hypotheses
H1: Adolescents who perceive e-cigarettes as less harmful than cigarettes will report significantly higher subsequent frequency of e-cigarette use than adolescents who perceive e-cigarettes as the same or more harmful than cigarettes.
Ho: Adolescents who perceive e-cigarettes as less harmful than cigarettes will not report significantly higher subsequent frequency of e-cigarette use than adolescents who perceive e-cigarettes as the same or more harmful than cigarettes.
Independent and Dependent Variables
IV = Comparative harm perception of e-cigarettes relative to cigarettes
DV = Frequency of e-cigarette use
Categorical IV and Continuous DV
IV categorical = Perceives e-cigarettes as less harmful than cigarettes / Perceives e-cigarettes as the same or more harmful than cigarettes
DV continuous = Number of days e-cigarettes were used in the past 30 days
An intervention like this would cluster adolescents into two groups according to their reported perceptions of harm, and compare the average number of use days in each group in a specified period of follow-up. It resembles the format Li et al. (2026) applied to their outcome variable but replaces the outcome itself with a perception with an actual count of behavior, which is exactly what the original authors found lacking.
Considerations for Measurement
A couple of things must be verified before choosing or constructing a measure of either variable. To begin with, the measure must be a measure that is equal to the construct. An item that measures a perception of harm with a question involving general safety is not comparable to an item that measures whether a product is less harmful than cigarettes and the wrong wording would not represent the construct the hypothesis is testing. Second, the format of the responses is important. A perception item must have sufficient response options to show whether there is a meaningful variation, whereas a use frequency item must have clear limited recall period (i.e. last 30 days) so that responses can be compared across subjects. Third, the measure must also be written down, not written in isolation, but must have recorded psychometric properties in previous studies that have used a similar population.
A measure should exhibit two different things, validity and reliability. Validity refers to the measure being what it purports to measure, and not something similar to it (Gravetter and Forzano, 2018). To illustrate, a harm perception item can be considered valid when it actually represents a comparative risk belief of a respondent, rather than his or her overall attitude towards tobacco products. The term reliability implies that the measure yields similar outcomes when it is administered repeatedly or when it measures the same construct, using different items (Gravetter and Forzano, 2018). A dependable frequency of use item would produce the same responses were it inquired twice in a brief period, provided that there were no real behavioral changes. A measure may be reliable but not valid, as a poorly phrased measure may always be measuring the wrong variable, but a measure should not be said to be valid which is not also reliable. That is why both properties should be verified prior to adopting an existing scale or item of previous tobacco research.
References
Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L. A. B. (2018). Research methods for the behavioral sciences. Cengage Learning.
Li, X., Vaughn, M. G., Xian, H., & Qian, Z. (2026). Shaping perceptions online: The frequency of social media use and comparative harm perceptions of tobacco products among U.S. adolescents. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-026-00661-z
Parker, M. A., Villanti, A. C., Quisenberry, A. J., Stanton, C. A., Doogan, N. J., Redner, R., & Higgins, S. T. (2018). Tobacco product harm perceptions and new use. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-1505
Stanton, C. A., Pasch, K. E., Pericot-Valverde, I., Cruz-Cano, R., Moran, M. B., Abadi, M. H., Mays, D., Mercincavage, M., Tang, Z., & Chen-Sankey, J. (2022). Longitudinal associations between US youth exposure to e-cigarette marketing and e-cigarette use harm perception and behavior change. Preventive Medicine, 164, Article 107266. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36152822/
Charles Romano
Jul 17, 2026 12:47 PM
Hi Gladjina
I found your decision to connect harm perception with later vaping behavior to be a very practical and logical direction for this research because it moves beyond what adolescents believe and asks whether those beliefs predict what they eventually do. Measuring the number of days they used e-cigarettes during the past 30 days also gives the outcome a clear behavioral meaning by showing us how frequently use occurred rather than simply whether it occurred.
As I read through your study idea, I started wondering whether harm perception might work differently depending on whether an adolescent has already tried vaping. For adolescents who have never used an e-cigarette, the number of use days reported at follow up would show whether they initiated use and, if so, how frequently they used it. For adolescents who have already experimented, that same measure could show whether their use remained occasional or became more frequent over time. Parker et al. (2018) connected lower harm perceptions with later initiation, so your study could build on that finding by examining whether those beliefs also relate to progression of use.
Knowing whether participants had already tried vaping at the start would make the results much easier to interpret. It would help show whether lower harm perception mainly makes adolescents more willing to try e-cigarettes or whether it continues to matter after they have already experimented. Being clear about who is being studied and what the number of use days is meant to capture would also make the variables line up more naturally with your proposed hypothesis (Gravetter et al., 2026).
Would you be more interested in examining whether lower harm perception predicts first time use among adolescents who have never vaped, or whether it predicts more frequent use among those who have already experimented?
-Charles
References
Gravetter, F. J., Forzano, L.-A. B., & Witnauer, J. E. (2026). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Cengage.
Parker, M. A., Villanti, A. C., Quisenberry, A. J., Stanton, C. A., Doogan, N. J., Redner, R., Gaalema, D. E., Kurti, A. N., Nighbor, T., Roberts, M. E., Cepeda-Benito, A., & Higgins, S. T. (2018). Tobacco product harm perceptions and new use. Pediatrics, 142(6), Article e20181505. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-1505
Anthony O'Neil
Jul 17, 2026 3:47 PM
NEW
Hey Gladjina,
This is a really well-constructed gap, you clearly laid out how Li et al. (2026) identified the perception-behavior link but stopped short of testing it, and how Stanton et al. (2022) flagged the same mediation question from a different angle. Pulling those two together into one unanswered question about whether perception actually predicts use, versus just co-occurring with it, gives your hypothesis a strong logical foundation.
I liked your point about the wording of the perception item mattering so much for construct validity. It's a good example of how a seemingly small measurement choice (general safety vs. comparative harm to cigarettes specifically) could completely change what the study is actually capturing. That distinction feels especially important given how much variation there probably is in how adolescents interpret "harm" in the first place.
Your operationalization of the DV as days of use in the past 30 days is a smart move too, it gives you a continuous, comparable outcome instead of relying on a vaguer self-reported frequency category. I'm curious whether you'd also consider controlling for baseline tobacco use status in your eventual design, since the literature you cited noted that harm perception's link to vulnerability is strongest among non-users specifically. That could be an interesting wrinkle for your future work section.
Great use of the literature to build toward a testable, refutable hypothesis here.
References
Li, X., Vaughn, M. G., Xian, H., & Qian, Z. (2026). Shaping perceptions online: The frequency of social media use and comparative harm perceptions of tobacco products among U.S. adolescents. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-026-00661-z
Stanton, C. A., Pasch, K. E., Pericot-Valverde, I., Cruz-Cano, R., Moran, M. B., Abadi, M. H., Mays, D., Mercincavage, M., Tang, Z., & Chen-Sankey, J. (2022). Longitudinal associations between US youth exposure to e-cigarette marketing and e-cigarette use harm perception and behavior change. Preventive Medicine, 164, Article 107266. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36152822/
J'aimani NathanielJay man eeShe/Her/Hers/Herself
Jul 18, 2026 9:36 PM
NEW
Hello Gladjina,
Your proposed research design effectively addresses an essential gap in adolescent substance use literature by evaluating whether comparative harm perception directly predicts behavioral frequency. By focusing on actual use days, your framework operationalizes the behavioral outcomes that previous longitudinal research left unexamined.
When verifying the psychometric properties of your selected measures, evaluating construct validity is critical. Because adolescents are heavily exposed to e-cigarette marketing and social media influences, an instrument must isolate specific comparative risk beliefs rather than broader social attitudes. For example, a study published in Addictive Behaviors demonstrated that specific advertising features heavily distort youth harm perceptions over time, making it necessary for your harm perception scale to isolate product-specific risks from general health beliefs (Dai & Khan, 2024). To establish external validity, your research must differentiate whether a lower perception of harm truly precipitates tobacco product initiation or if it merely co-occurs alongside a broader lifestyle pattern of adolescent risk-taking. Research from Drug and Alcohol Dependence emphasizes that lower harm perception acts as a powerful statistical predictor for subsequent initiation among tobacco-naïve youth (Chaffee et al., 2023). This support validates your choice to evaluate perception as an active independent variable rather than a passive byproduct of behavior.
Your emphasis on establishing limited recall windows, such as a 30-day use period, will optimize measurement reliability by minimizing adolescent recall bias. Overall, your study design provides a clear path forward for public health researchers. Dissecting these nuances will clarify whether health practitioners should prioritize cognitive interventions aimed at harm perception or focus broader efforts on regulatory policies and environmental support structures.
References
Chaffee, B. W., Cheng, J., Couch, E. T., & Gansky, S. A. (2023). Effect of harm perception on ENDS initiation among US adolescents and young adults. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 244, Article 109783. doi.org
Dai, H., & Khan, A. S. (2024). A four-year longitudinal analysis examining the effects of e-cigarette advertising on adolescent harm perception. Addictive Behaviors, 154, Article 108003. doi.org
Elasmy VillaescusaCall Me Ellie
Jul 18, 2026 9:38 PM
NEW
Hi Gladjina,
I think your hypothesis is clear and directly addresses the gap you identified in the literature. I especially like that you changed the outcome from harm perception to an actual behavioral measure. Using the number of days an adolescent used e-cigarettes during the past 30 days makes the dependent variable specific and measurable.
Your discussion of validity and reliability was also important. The wording of the harm-perception question could greatly affect the results because asking whether e-cigarettes are “safe” is different from asking whether they are less harmful than cigarettes. I also agree that a defined recall period is necessary when measuring frequency of use. However, self-reported use may still be affected by memory errors or social desirability, particularly because the participants are adolescents.
One additional factor to consider is whether the adolescents had already used e-cigarettes at the beginning of the study. Prior use, peer influence, exposure to advertising, and general risk-taking behavior could affect both their harm perceptions and their later frequency of use. Controlling for these variables would help determine whether lower perceived harm independently predicts increased use rather than simply occurring alongside other risk factors. A longitudinal design would be especially useful because it would establish that the perception was measured before the later behavior.
Taleigha Wiggins
Jul 19, 2026 11:22 PM
NEW
I enjoyed reading your post