Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40688550›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

Attribution or empathy? A study on the public opinion response framework of government social media-a qualitative comparative analysis of 21 public opinion incidents.

Yuan Li, Mingyang Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yuan LiSchool of Journalism and Communication, Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Mingyang LiuSchool of Journalism and Communication, Shandong University, Jinan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study examined the influencing factors of government social media's public opinion response framework from the perspective of public opinion ecological governance, and provides an optimization strategy for its response. According to a qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) of 21 public opinion incidents, it was found that government social media tended to employ a context-responsibility framework when faced with the combined paths of high netizen attention and strong negative sentiment, as well as high media participation and elevated levels of government intervention. In contrast, a subject-emotional framework is preferred in scenarios with weak negative sentiment and incomplete initial media reporting, or when high media participation coincides with highly sensitive event types. According to these findings, issues of attribution inertia and post-event empathy in government social media responses were identified and the application of public opinion ecosystem governance principles were advocated to enhance dynamic balance, openness, and foresight, thereby optimizing capabilities in public opinion regulation, deep communication, and proactive "preventive care."

Indexed as

government public opinion responsegovernment social mediapublic opinion ecosystem governancepublic opinion response frameworkqualitative comparative analysis

Identifiers

PMID40688550
PMCPMC12273600

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.