#MeToo
Intersecting Gender, Race, User Identity, Social Judgment and Social Support
Keywords:
#MeToo, social identity, social judgment, social support, social movementAbstract
This study examined the #MeToo movement by analyzing user comments on Twitter. The study tested an integrated framework of theories and constructs, including social identity, social judgment, and social support as well as race and gender. Findings suggest that social judgment differed between users with separate social identity. Specifically, users affiliated with news media were non-committal to the movement. Those who accepted the movement provided social support to victim-survivors more than those who rejected or remained non-committal. Female and White users were more accepting of the movement than male and gender/race unidentified users. More male users rejected the movement than gender-unidentified users. The findings have contributed to advancing social psychology theories as the basis for examining public response to a social movement. This study also improved our empirical understanding of how sociological, psychological and demographic intersectionality in society can help determine the success, failure or sustainability of a social movement.
References
Agresti, A. (2007). An introduction to categorical data analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Asp, K. (2007). Fairness, informativeness and scrutiny: The role of news media in democracy. Nordicom Review, 28.
Bailo, F., & Vromen, A. (2017). Hybrid social and news media protest events: From #MarchinMarch to #BusttheBudget in Australia. Information, Communication & Society, 20(11), 1660-1679.
Barnes, M. K., & Duck, S. (1994). Everyday communicative contexts for social support. In B. R. Burleson, T. L. Albrecht, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Communication of social support: Messages, interactions, relationships, and community (pp. 175-194). Sage Publications, Inc.
Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. A. (1995). Understanding the bond of identification: An investigation of its correlates among art museum members. Journal of Marketing, 59(4), 46-57.
Blazina, C. (2021, August 6). Fast facts on views of workplace harassment amid allegations against New York Gov. Cuomo. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/06/fast-facts-on-views-of-workplace-harassment-amid-allegations-against-new-york-gov-cuomo/
Buechler, S. M. (1993). Beyond resource mobilization? Emerging trends in social movement theory. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(2), 217-235.
CBS. (2017, October 17). More than 12M “Me Too” Facebook posts, comments, reactions in 24 hours. CBS News. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/metoo-more-than-12-million-facebook-posts-comments-reactions-24-hours/
Clark-Parsons, R. (2021). “I see you, I believe you, I stand with you”: #MeToo and the performance of networked feminist visibility. Feminist Media Studies, 21(3), 362-380. doi: 10.1080/14680777.2019.1628797
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
De Swert, K. (2012). Calculating inter-coder reliability in media content analysis using Krippendorff’s Alpha. Center for Politics and Communication, 1-15.
Diani, M. (2000). Simmel to Rokkan and beyond: Towards a network theory of (new) social movements. European Journal of Social Theory, 3(4), 387-406.
Drewett, C., Oxlad, M., & Augoustinos, M. (2021). Breaking the silence on sexual harassment and assault: An analysis of #MeToo tweets. Computers in Human Behavior, 123(106896), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106896
Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (2005). Explaining enduring empowerment: A comparative study of collective action and psychological outcomes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 35-58. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.231
Dutt, A., & Grabe, S. (2014). Lifetime activism, marginality, and psychology: Narratives of lifelong feminist activists committed to social change. Qualitative Psychology, 1(2), 107-122. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000010
Garcia, S. E. (2017, October 20). The woman who created #MeToo long before hashtags. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/us/me-too-movement-tarana-burke.html
Gaske, P. C. (1983). Toward the conceptual clarification of social judgment-involvement theory. Communication, 12(1), 71.
Gill, R., & Orgad, S. (2018). The shifting terrain of sex and power: From the ‘sexualization of culture’ to #MeToo. Sexualities, 21(8), 1313-1324.
Golder, S., Stevens, R., O’Connor, K., James, R., & Gonzalez-Hernandez, G. (2022). Methods to establish race or ethnicity of twitter users: Scoping review. Journal of Medical Internet research, 24(4), 1-23. doi: 10.2196/35788
Haberman, S. J. (1973). The analysis of residuals in cross-classified tables. Biometrics, 29(1), 205-220.
Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1994). Preferring “housewives” to “feminists”: Categorization and the favorability of attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(1), 25-52.
Hopkins, N., Kahani-Hopkins, V., & Reicher, S. (2006). Identity and social change: Contextualizing agency. Feminism & Psychology, 16, 52–57. doi:10.1177/0959-353506060820
Horn, J. (2013). Gender and social movements: Overview report. Brighton, England: Institute of Development Studies.
Hosterman, A. R., Johnson, N. R., Stouffer, R., & Herring, S. (2018). Twitter, social support messages, and the #MeToo movement. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 7(2), 69-91.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Hutchinson, D. L. (2001). Identities in the year 2000 and beyond: Identity crisis: “Intersectionality,” “multidimensionality,” and the development of an adequate theory of subordination. Michigan Journal of Race & Law, 6(2).
Jaworska, S., & Krishnamurthy, R. (2012). On the F word: A corpus-based analysis of the media representation of feminism in British and German press discourse, 1990–2009. Discourse & Society, 23(4), 401-431.
Kaufman, M. R., Dey, D., Crainiceanu, C., & Dredze, M. (2019). #MeToo and Google inquiries into sexual violence: A hashtag campaign can sustain information seeking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 00(0), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519868197
Langone, A. (2018, March 22). #MeToo and Time's Up founders explain the difference between the 2 movements — and how they're alike. TIME. Retrieved from https://time.com/5189945/whats-the-difference-between-the-metoo-and-times-up-movements/
LeFebvre, R. K., & Armstrong, C. (2018). Grievance-based social movement mobilization in the #Ferguson Twitter storm. New Media & Society, 20(1), 8-28.
Li, P., Cho, H., Qin, Y., & Chen, A. (2020). #MeToo as a connective movement: Examining the frames adopted in the anti-sexual harassment movement in China. Social Science Computer Review, 0894439320956790.
Mallard, J. (2010). Engaging students in social judgment theory. Communication Teacher, 24(4), 197-202.
Matthews, N. L. (2019). Detecting the boundaries of disposition bias on moral judgments of media characters’ behaviors using social judgment theory. Journal of Communication, 69(4), 418–441. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz021
Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative content analysis. A Companion to Qualitative Research, 1(2), 159-176.
Mendes, K., Ringrose, J., & Keller, J. (2018). #MeToo and the promise and pitfalls of challenging rape culture through digital feminist activism. European Journal of Women's Studies, 25(2), 236-246.
Merton, R. (1957). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
me too. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://metoomvmt.org/about/#history
Milner, D. (1996). Children and racism: Beyond the value of the dolls. In W. P. Robinson, & H. Tajfel (Eds.), Social groups and identities: Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel (pp. 249-268). Psychology Press.
Modrek, S., & Chakalov, B. (2019). The #MeToo movement in the United States: Text analysis of early twitter conversations. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(9), e13837.
Newall, M., & Boyon, N. (2019, March 4). Global study: Half of men think they’re expected to do too much in the fight for gender equality. IPSOS. Retrieved from https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/International-Womens-Day
Oberschall, A. (1973). Social conflict and social movements. Prentice hall.
Obregón, R., & Tufte, T. (2017). Communication, social movements, and collective action: Toward a new research agenda in communication for development and social change. Journal of Communication, 67(5), 635-645.
Ohlheiser, A. (2017, October 19). The woman behind ‘Me Too’ knew the power of the phrase when she created it — 10 years ago. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/10/19/the-woman-behind-me-too-knew-the-power-of-the-phrase-when-she-created-it-10-years-ago/
O’Keefe, D. J. (1990). Persuasion: Theory and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Onwuachi-Willig, A. (2018). What about #UsToo: The invisibility of race in the #MeToo movement. Yale LJF, 128, 105.
Pain, P. (2020). “It took me quite a long time to develop a voice”: Examining feminist digital activism in the Indian #MeToo movement. New Media & Society, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820944846
Peleg-Koriat, I., & Klar-Chalamish, C. (2020). The #MeToo movement and restorative justice: Exploring the views of the public. Contemporary Justice Review, 23(3), 239-260.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster.
Reicher, S. (2004). The context of social identity: Domination, resistance, and change. Political psychology, 25(6), 921-945. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00403.x
Renkl, M. (2017, October 19). The raw power of #MeToo. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/opinion/the-raw-power-of-metoo.html
Rodino-Colocino, M. (2018). Me too, #MeToo: Countering cruelty with empathy. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 15(1), 96-100.
Sharpe, D. (2015). Chi-square test is statistically significant: Now what?. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 20(8), pp. 1-10.
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper.
Sherif, M. (1948). An outline of social psychology. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1968). Attitude as the individuals’ own categories: The social judgment involvement approach to attitude and attitude change. In M. Sherif & C. W. Sherif (Eds.), Attitude, Ego-involvement, and Change (pp. 105-139). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R. E. (1965). Attitude and attitude change: The social judgment-involvement approach (pp. 127-167). Philadelphia: Saunders.
Siero, F. W., & Doosje, B. J. (1993). Attitude change following persuasive communication: Integrating social judgment theory and the elaboration likelihood model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23(5), 541-554.
Smith, S. W., Atkin, C. K., Martell, D., Allen, R., & Hembroff, L. (2006). A social judgment theory approach to conducting formative research in a social norms campaign. Communication Theory, 16(1), 141-152.
Step, M. M., Bracken, C. C., Trapl, E. S., & Flocke, S. A. (2016). User and content characteristics of public tweets referencing little cigars. American Journal of Health Behavior, 40(1), 38-47.
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 224-237.
Suk, J., Abhishek, A., Zhang, Y., Ahn, S. Y., Correa, T., Garlough, C., & Shah, D. V. (2021). #MeToo, networked acknowledgment, and connective action: How “empowerment through empathy” launched a social movement. Social Science Computer Review, 39(2), 276-294. doi: 10.1177/0894439319864882
Tajfel, H. E. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1-39.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). The social identity theory of group behavior. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33-47.
Tanis, M. (2008). What makes the internet a place to seek social support? In E. A. Konijn, S. Utz, M. Tanis, & S. B. Barnes (Eds.), Mediated Interpersonal Communication (pp. 290-308). Routledge.
Van Stekelenburg, J., & Klandermans, B. (2013). The social psychology of protest. Current Sociology, 61(5-6), 886-905. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392113479314
Van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A. H., & Leach, C. W. (2004). Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 649.
Walther, J. B., & Boyd, S. (2002). Attraction to computer-mediated social support. Communication Technology and Society: Audience Adoption and Uses, 153188, 50-88.
Whittier, N. (1995). Feminist generations: The persistence of the radical women's movement. Temple University Press.
Wiley, S., & Bikmen, N. (2012). Building solidarity across difference: Social identity, intersectionality, and collective action for social change. In Social categories in everyday experience (pp. 189–204). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13488-010
Wright, K. B., & Miller, C. H. (2010). A measure of weak-tie/strong-tie support network preference. Communication Monographs, 77(4), 500-517.
Wright, K. B., & Rains, S. A. (2013). Weak-tie support network preference, health-related stigma, and health outcomes in computer-mediated support groups. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41(3), 309-324.
Zamir, M. (2017). Anatomy of a Social Media Movement: Diffusion, Sentiment and Network Analysis. [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina]. Scholar Commons.
Zarkov, D., & Davis, K. (2018). Ambiguities and dilemmas around #MeToo: #ForHow Long and #WhereTo? European Journal of Women’s Studies, 25(1), 3-9. doi:10.1177/1350506817749436
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
