Platform Aesthetics and Relational-Risk Cues in Short-Form Relationship Advice

Heath N. Landress

doi:10.66815/ajqr/19859

Heath N. Landress ¹ ^*

More Detail

AM J QUALITATIVE RES, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp. 372-391

https://doi.org/10.66815/ajqr/19859

OPEN ACCESS 34 Views 14 Downloads

Download Full Text (PDF)

Abstract

This study examined whether familiar short-form presentation features distinguish relationship-advice posts that include literature-informed relational-risk cues from posts without them. The analysis addressed the specificity of five presentation categories and the contextual distinction between normalizing problematic behavior and warning against it. A qualitative-dominant secondary analysis used the existing five-pass qualitative multimedia coding of 100 public videos, evenly split between TikTok and Instagram Reels. Posts were classified as cue-positive when at least one of 10 operationally defined relational cues was present and cue-negative when none was present. Within-corpus comparisons used Mann–Whitney and Fisher exact tests, false-discovery-rate correction, and qualitative negative-case analysis. Nineteen posts were cue-positive and 81 were cue-negative. Parasocial Proximity and Platform Normalization appeared in every post. Presentation-feature density and Advice Genre Framing did not differ significantly. Authority Framing was more common in cue-positive posts (84.2% vs. 46.9%; odds ratio = 6.04; adjusted q = .011), whereas Intimate Setting Cues were less common (47.4% vs. 87.7%; odds ratio = 0.13; q = .002). Negative cases showed that similar aesthetics also accompanied protective and boundary-supportive advice. These exploratory findings support examining relational content and the function of authority claims; they do not establish grooming, creator intent, audience effects, or validated risk indicators.

Keywords: qualitative multimedia content analysis, TikTok, Instagram Reels, relationship advice, relational risk

References

Adler, R. H. (2022). Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Human Lactation, 38(4), 598–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/08903344221116620
Ahmed, S. K. (2024). The pillars of trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health, 2, Article 100051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2024.100051
Alderaan, O. (2026). The reflexive insider-outsider researcher: A falcon observes its reflection on a clear lake. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 10(2), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/18016
Arett, J. P., Weaver, T. L., Garner, A., & Murugan, V. (2025). A content analysis of conversation characteristics of online sexual grooming. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 17(S1), S69–S78. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001816
Austin, E. W., & Domgaard, S. (2024). The media literacy theory of change and the message interpretation process model. Communication Theory, 34(4), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtae018
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), Article e38340. https://doi.org/10.2196/38340
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
Bingham, A. J. (2023). From data management to actionable findings: A five-phase process of qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231183620
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2025). Reporting guidelines for qualitative research: A values-based approach. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 22(2), 399–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2024.2382244
Chiu, J., & Quayle, E. (2022). Understanding online grooming: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of adolescents' offline meetings with adult perpetrators. Child Abuse & Neglect, 128, Article 105600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105600
Cliff, N. (1993). Dominance statistics: Ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 494–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.494
Faverio, M., & Sidoti, O. (2024, December 12). Teens, social media and technology 2024. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/12/12/teens-social-media-and-technology-2024/
Fazeli, S., Sabetti, J., & Ferrari, M. (2023). Performing qualitative content analysis of video data in social sciences and medicine: The visual-verbal video analysis method. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231185452
Fu, J., Li, C., Zhou, C., Li, W., Lai, J., Deng, S., Zhang, Y., Guo, Z., & Wu, Y. (2023). Methods for analyzing the contents of social media for health care: Scoping review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, Article e43349. https://doi.org/10.2196/43349
Geise, S., & Xu, Y. (2025). Effects of visual framing in multimodal media environments: A systematic review of studies between 1979 and 2023. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 102(3), 796–823. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990241257586
Grzenkowicz, M., & Wildfeuer, J. (2025). Addressing TikTok's multimodal complexity: A multi-level annotation scheme for the audio-visual design of short video content. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 40(4), 1143–1166. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqaf047
Harrington, C. (2025). Making ethical judgement calls about qualitative social media research on sensitive issues. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 28(4), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2024.2393796
Kaur, K., Abu-Qamar, M. Z., Rashidi, A., McKay, N., & Saunders, R. (2025). Applying hybrid coding and reflexivity in qualitative content analysis: An exemplar. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 12, Article 23333936251395024. https://doi.org/10.1177/23333936251395024
Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781
Lane, J. L., & Bourdo, K. (2026). The dual meaning of trustworthiness: How member checking can promote more rigorous and ethical research. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 10(3), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.66815/ajqr/18541
Langlais, M. R., Boudreau, C., & Asad, L. (2024). TikTok and romantic relationships: A qualitative descriptive analysis. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 8(3), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/14896
Lathan, H. S., Kwan, A., Takats, C., Tanner, J. P., Wormer, R., Romero, D., & Jones, H. E. (2023). Ethical considerations and methodological uses of Facebook data in public health research: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 322, Article 115807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115807
Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, D. M., Josselson, R., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151
Mordecai, C. (2023). #anxiety: A multimodal discourse analysis of narrations of anxiety on TikTok. Computers and Composition, 67, Article 102763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2023.102763
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2024). Social media and adolescent health. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27396
Nesi, J., Choukas-Bradley, S., & Prinstein, M. J. (2018). Transformation of adolescent peer relations in the social media context: Part 1—A theoretical framework and application to dyadic peer relationships. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 21(3), 267–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-018-0261-x
Nicmanis, M. (2024). Reflexive content analysis: An approach to qualitative data analysis, reduction, and description. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241236603
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Polanco-Levicán, K., & Salvo-Garrido, S. (2022). Understanding social media literacy: A systematic review of the concept and its competences. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), Article 8807. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148807
Reneses, M., Riberas-Gutiérrez, M., & Bueno-Guerra, N. (2024). “He flattered me”. A comprehensive look into online grooming risk factors: Merging voices of victims, offenders and experts through in-depth interviews. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 18(4), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2024-4-3
Rezaee Borj, P., Raja, K., & Bours, P. (2023). Online grooming detection: A comprehensive survey of child exploitation in chat logs. Knowledge-Based Systems, 259, Article 110039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2022.110039
Ringenberg, T. R., Seigfried-Spellar, K. C., Rayz, J. M., & Rogers, M. K. (2022). A scoping review of child grooming strategies: Pre- and post-internet. Child Abuse & Neglect, 123, Article 105392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105392
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE.
Schittenhelm, C., Kops, M., Moosburner, M., Fischer, S. M., & Wachs, S. (2025). Cybergrooming victimization among young people: A systematic review of prevalence rates, risk factors, and outcomes. Adolescent Research Review, 10(2), 169–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-024-00248-w
Tanner, J. P., Takats, C., Lathan, H. S., Kwan, A., Wormer, R., Romero, D., & Jones, H. E. (2023). Approaches to research ethics in health research on YouTube: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, Article e43060. https://doi.org/10.2196/43060
Valkenburg, P. M., Meier, A., & Beyens, I. (2022). Social media use and its impact on adolescent mental health: An umbrella review of the evidence. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.017
van der Wal, A., Valkenburg, P. M., & van Driel, I. I. (2024). In their own words: How adolescents use social media and how it affects them. Social Media + Society, 10(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051241248591
Zhang, Y., Fu, J., Lai, J., Deng, S., Guo, Z., Zhong, C., Tang, J., Cao, W., & Wu, Y. (2024). Reporting of ethical considerations in qualitative research utilizing social media data on public health care: Scoping review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 26, Article e51496. https://doi.org/10.2196/51496

Citation

Landress, H. N. (2026). Platform Aesthetics and Relational-Risk Cues in Short-Form Relationship Advice. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 10(4), 372-391. https://doi.org/10.66815/ajqr/19859

Landress, H. N. (2026). Platform Aesthetics and Relational-Risk Cues in Short-Form Relationship Advice. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 10(4), pp. 372-391. https://doi.org/10.66815/ajqr/19859

Landress HN. Platform Aesthetics and Relational-Risk Cues in Short-Form Relationship Advice. AM J QUALITATIVE RES. 2026;10(4), 372-391. https://doi.org/10.66815/ajqr/19859

Landress, Heath N.. "Platform Aesthetics and Relational-Risk Cues in Short-Form Relationship Advice". American Journal of Qualitative Research 2026 10 no. 4 (2026): 372-391. https://doi.org/10.66815/ajqr/19859

Landress, Heath N. "Platform Aesthetics and Relational-Risk Cues in Short-Form Relationship Advice". American Journal of Qualitative Research, vol. 10, no. 4, 2026, pp. 372-391. https://doi.org/10.66815/ajqr/19859

Landress HN. Platform Aesthetics and Relational-Risk Cues in Short-Form Relationship Advice. AM J QUALITATIVE RES. 2026;10(4):372-91. https://doi.org/10.66815/ajqr/19859