Teresa Lynch,Jessica E. Tompkins,Irene I. van Driel and Niki Fritz (Indiana University, Bloomington, USA) published in Journal of Communication Volume 66 Issue 4 (August 2016)
Abstract
We analyzed in-game content from titles released between 1983 and 2014 (n = 571) featuring playable female characters. Results indicate that sexualization has diminished since an observed height in the 1990s.
Traditionally male-oriented genres (e.g. fighting) have more sexualized characters than role-playing games. Games rated Teen or Mature did not differ in sexualization and featured more sexualization than Everyone games.
Despite an increase in games featuring playable female characters, games still depict female characters more often in secondary roles and sexualized them more than primary characters. A positive relationship emerged between the sexualization of female characters and their physical capability.
Critical success of games was unrelated to sexualization.
We discuss these findings in light of social identity and objectification theories.
Showing posts with label social_identity_theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social_identity_theory. Show all posts
Monday, 9 January 2017
Tuesday, 6 August 2013
How can we make organizational interventions work? Employees and line managers as actively crafting interventions
an article by Karina Nielsen (University of East Anglia, UK) published in Human Relations Volume 66 Number 8 (August 2013)
Abstract
In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in the processes of organisational interventions when evaluating the outcomes on employee health and well-being. Nevertheless, process evaluation is still in its infancy and primarily consists of checklists inspired by the public health intervention literature.
In these frameworks, employees are seen as passive recipients whose reactions to pre-developed interventions should be evaluated. Current organisational intervention design rests on a participatory approach and recent process evaluations reveal that employees and line managers influence the implementation and the outcomes of organisational interventions.
Following the current foci of current frameworks we may miss out on important information on the influence of both the participatory process and the line managers on intervention outcomes.
I argue that current evaluation frameworks suffer from four limitations:
Abstract
In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in the processes of organisational interventions when evaluating the outcomes on employee health and well-being. Nevertheless, process evaluation is still in its infancy and primarily consists of checklists inspired by the public health intervention literature.
In these frameworks, employees are seen as passive recipients whose reactions to pre-developed interventions should be evaluated. Current organisational intervention design rests on a participatory approach and recent process evaluations reveal that employees and line managers influence the implementation and the outcomes of organisational interventions.
Following the current foci of current frameworks we may miss out on important information on the influence of both the participatory process and the line managers on intervention outcomes.
I argue that current evaluation frameworks suffer from four limitations:
- they are not aligned with state-of-the-art research and practice;
- and therefore they fail to apply theory to explain how and why human agents influence intervention implementation and outcomes;
- they do not offer suggestions as to how such agency can be measured; and
- nor do they discuss how we may use knowledge obtained from process evaluation proactively when designing future organizational interventions.
Thursday, 18 April 2013
Workplace bullying as a gendered phenomenon
an article by Denise Salin (Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland) and Helge Hoel (Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, UK) published in Journal of Managerial Psychology Volume 28 Issue 3 (2013)
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to argue that bullying is a gendered, rather than gender-neutral, phenomenon.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper reviews empirical findings on gender and bullying and identifies and discusses theoretical frameworks that can provide explanations for identified gender differences.
Findings
The paper shows that there are gender differences not only in reported prevalence rates and forms of bullying, but that gender also matters for the way targets and third parties make sense of and respond to bullying. It is shown that gendered conceptions of power, gender role socialisation theory and social identity theory are all relevant for explaining reported gender differences.
Research limitations/implications
The theoretical frameworks that have been selected should not be seen as exhaustive, but rather as useful examples. The authors encourage researchers in the field of bullying to pursue cross-disciplinary research and actively apply existing theoretical frameworks to integrate their findings more firmly in existing research on related themes.
Practical implications
The finding that bullying is gendered rather than gender-neutral has implications above all for the way managers, organisational representatives and policy-makers should address and prevent workplace bullying.
Originality/value
The paper questions the prevailing notion that bullying is gender-neutral and demonstrates the importance of gender in the experience of workplace bullying. It further identifies gaps in research and puts forward an agenda for future research in this area.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to argue that bullying is a gendered, rather than gender-neutral, phenomenon.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper reviews empirical findings on gender and bullying and identifies and discusses theoretical frameworks that can provide explanations for identified gender differences.
Findings
The paper shows that there are gender differences not only in reported prevalence rates and forms of bullying, but that gender also matters for the way targets and third parties make sense of and respond to bullying. It is shown that gendered conceptions of power, gender role socialisation theory and social identity theory are all relevant for explaining reported gender differences.
Research limitations/implications
The theoretical frameworks that have been selected should not be seen as exhaustive, but rather as useful examples. The authors encourage researchers in the field of bullying to pursue cross-disciplinary research and actively apply existing theoretical frameworks to integrate their findings more firmly in existing research on related themes.
Practical implications
The finding that bullying is gendered rather than gender-neutral has implications above all for the way managers, organisational representatives and policy-makers should address and prevent workplace bullying.
Originality/value
The paper questions the prevailing notion that bullying is gender-neutral and demonstrates the importance of gender in the experience of workplace bullying. It further identifies gaps in research and puts forward an agenda for future research in this area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)