How To Look After Your Friends on a Night Out (Beyond Getting Them Home Safe). 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Appeal to authority

Relying on an expert’s status to support a position without providing much underlying evidence or nuance.

The article leans on psychologist Tasia Manuel’s authority to frame social vaping as risky and to support specific behavioural recommendations: - “After trying to quit vaping, I spoke with psychologist Tasia Manuel to unpack the patterns around social vaping – not just its addictive nature, but the social cues that reinforce it.” - “ ‘Sharing a vape can feel social and inclusive, but it also reinforces a behaviour that carries risk – not just individually, but across the group dynamic,’ she tells me.” - “ ‘Saying no doesn’t have to be a big moment. A simple ‘no, I’m okay’ can help shift social norms,’ Manuel says.” While citing an expert is appropriate, the article does not present any data, studies, or counter‑views, and the expert’s statements are treated as sufficient proof of the broader claims about group dynamics and risk.

3 suggestions

Add references to empirical research or reputable health‑authority sources that support the claims about social pressure, group dynamics, and vaping risks (e.g. specific studies on social contagion of vaping or nicotine dependence).

Clarify that the psychologist’s comments are professional opinions rather than definitive proof, for example: “Manuel suggests that…” or “According to Manuel’s clinical experience…”.

Briefly acknowledge that experiences can vary and that not everyone will experience social vaping or boundaries in the same way, to reduce overreliance on a single authority.

Unsubstantiated claims

Presenting factual‑sounding statements without evidence, citations, or clear sourcing.

Several health and behavioural claims are presented as facts without direct sourcing: - “For many people, this seemingly small habit can turn into a dependence. Even people who don’t vape every day can find themselves craving nicotine without quite realising how it happened.” - “Nicotine is highly addictive, and small moments of pressure add up.” - “Because even when vaping feels casual, it still has real effects. Nicotine – which we know is highly addictive – can affect both your body and brain, with some effects including lung damage, nausea, vomiting, increased heart rate and addiction.” - “But even ‘nicotine-free’ vapes aren’t necessarily harmless, either.” These statements are plausible and broadly consistent with public‑health messaging, but the article does not provide any references, data, or qualifiers (e.g. likelihood, dose, or context) and treats them as self‑evident.

3 suggestions

Cite specific health authorities or studies (e.g. national health departments, WHO, peer‑reviewed research) for claims about addiction, lung damage, and other health effects of vaping and nicotine.

Qualify broad statements with context, such as: “Research suggests that for some people…” or “Evidence indicates that vaping can be associated with…”, instead of absolute phrasing.

For “nicotine‑free vapes aren’t necessarily harmless”, briefly specify known or suspected risks (e.g. certain chemicals, respiratory irritation) and reference a credible source, or rephrase to: “Some studies have raised concerns about potential risks from ingredients in nicotine‑free vapes.”

Omission of key information / Unbalanced reporting

Presenting only one side of an issue or omitting relevant context that would allow readers to fully evaluate the topic.

The article is produced “in partnership with Quit”, an organisation whose mission is to reduce or end smoking/vaping. The piece consistently frames vaping as risky and something to be reduced or avoided, and does not mention: - Any perspectives from people who vape and intend to continue, or who see it as harm reduction compared with smoking. - Any discussion of relative risk (e.g. vaping vs. combustible cigarettes) or the ongoing scientific debate and uncertainty in some areas. - The possibility that some adults may choose to vape with awareness of risks. Examples: - “Because even when vaping feels casual, it still has real effects.” - “But even ‘nicotine-free’ vapes aren’t necessarily harmless, either.” The sponsorship note appears only at the end: “This article is produced by Broadsheet in partnership with Quit.” This makes the framing understandable but still one‑sided.

3 suggestions

More clearly disclose at the beginning that the article is produced in partnership with Quit and that its focus is on reducing or quitting vaping, so readers understand the framing from the outset.

Briefly acknowledge that some adults may use vaping as a harm‑reduction tool compared with smoking, and note that evidence on relative risks is still evolving, while maintaining the article’s focus on support and caution.

Include a sentence clarifying scope, such as: “This article focuses on supporting friends who want to cut back or quit, rather than on people who have chosen to vape as a long‑term alternative to smoking.”

Framing effect

Presenting information in a way that emphasizes certain aspects and downplays others, influencing interpretation without explicitly stating a bias.

The article consistently frames vaping in a negative, risk‑focused way and frames not vaping as the default healthy, socially supportive choice. Examples: - “Sharing a vape can feel social and inclusive, but it also reinforces a behaviour that carries risk – not just individually, but across the group dynamic.” - “Because even when vaping feels casual, it still has real effects.” There is minimal framing of any potential perceived benefits (e.g. stress relief, harm reduction vs. smoking), except as “coping” that should be gently redirected. This framing is consistent with the partnership with Quit but still shapes readers’ perception by highlighting only one evaluative frame.

3 suggestions

Explicitly state the chosen frame, e.g.: “From a harm‑reduction and mental‑health perspective, this article focuses on ways to support friends who want to reduce or stop vaping.”

Acknowledge that some people experience short‑term perceived benefits (e.g. feeling calmer or more socially at ease) while still explaining why the article encourages alternative coping strategies.

Use more neutral phrasing where possible, such as: “Sharing a vape can feel social and inclusive, but it may also reinforce a behaviour that carries health risks.”

Appeal to emotion (mild)

Using emotionally charged framing to encourage a particular attitude or behaviour.

The article uses caring and protective language to encourage readers to discourage vaping among friends: - “There’s an unspoken agreement to look after each other, no matter what.” - “Remember, your actions let your friends know you care – not just on a night out, but after it, too.” This gently implies that encouraging less vaping is part of being a good, caring friend. While not extreme or manipulative in a sensational way, it does use emotional framing (care, responsibility, belonging) to support a specific behavioural stance.

3 suggestions

Clarify that caring for friends can include respecting their informed choices, even when they differ, e.g.: “Looking out for your friends can mean supporting their choices – including when they want to cut back or quit – and creating space where they can do that if they choose.”

Balance the emotional appeal with autonomy, such as: “These suggestions are options you can offer, not rules you need to enforce.”

Avoid implying that discouraging vaping is the only way to show care; instead, frame it as one possible expression of concern when friends themselves are ambivalent or trying to quit.