Review of Communication Research

INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION                                                                                                

Title & Authors

How Stereotypes Are Shared Through Language: A Review and Introduction of the Social Categories and Stereotypes Communication (SCSC) Framework

Camiel J. Beukeboom (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, NL)

Christian Burgers (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, NL)

Highlights

 

• Based on an integrative review we propose the SCSC framework that explicates the linguistic processes through which social-category stereotypes are consensualized..

• We discuss how biases in language use both result from and maintain perceived category entitativity, stereotype content, and essentialism.

We distinguish biases in both the content and linguistic form of social-category labels.

• We distinguish biases in both communication content and linguistic form in descriptions of behaviors and characteristics of categorized individuals.

• Our integrative framework allows for a better understanding of stereotype maintaining biases in natural language.

 

Abstract

Language use plays a crucial role in the consensualization of stereotypes within cultural groups. Based on integrative review of the literature on stereotyping and biased language use, we propose the Social Categories and Stereotypes Communication (SCSC) framework. The framework integrates largely independent areas of literature, and explicates the linguistic processes through which social-category stereotypes are shared and maintained. We distinguish two groups of biases in language use that jointly feed and maintain three fundamental cognitive variables in (shared) social-category cognition: perceived category entitativity, stereotype content, and perceived essentialism of associated stereotypic characteristics. These are: (1) Biases in linguistic labels used to denote categories, within which we discuss biases in (a) label content and (b) linguistic form of labels; (2) Biases in describing behaviors and characteristics of categorized individuals, within which we discuss biases in (a) communication content (i.e., what information is communicated), and (b) linguistic form of descriptions (i.e., how is information formulated). Together, these biases create a self-perpetuating cycle in which social-category stereotypes are shared and maintained. The framework allows for a better understanding of stereotype maintaining biases in natural language. We discuss various opportunities for further research.

Download

 

open access verde 

 

How Stereotypes Are Shared Through Language: A Review and Introduction of the Social Categories and Stereotypes Communication (SCSC) Framework

Camiel J. Beukeboom and Christian Burgers

Keywords: Stereotypes; prejudice; discrimination; linguistic bias; social categorization; language; communication; entitativity; essentialism.;

 

  Filesize 439.11 KB Download 55

 

 

Content

 

 

Introduction

Goals and Approach

Foundational Considerations and Definitions

The Social Categories and Stereotypes Communication (SCSC) Framework

Input About Target’s Situations

(Shared) Social-Category Cognition: Perceived Category Entitativity, Stereotype Content and Perceived Essentialism

Perceived category entitativity.

Cognitive stereotype content.

Perceived category essentialism.

Mutual relationships among the three variables.

Biased Language Use

(1) Biases in linguistic labeling.

(a) Biases in label content.

(b) Biases in the linguistic form of labels.

Section summary.

The role of biased labeling in the consensualization of social category cognition.

(2) Biases in describing behaviors and characteristics of categorized individuals.

(a) Biases in communication content: What information about categorized individuals is communicated.

Section summary.

(b) Biases in linguistic form of communications about categorized individuals.

Section summary and integration.

General Discussion: Contributions, Implications and Future Directions

Contributions: The Role of Language Use in the Consensualization of Social-Category Stereotypes

Practical implications

Conclusion

Literature

 

 

 

Keywords

Stereotypes; prejudice; discrimination; linguistic bias; social categorization; language; communication; entitativity; essentialism.

 

About the Authors

Authors biographical information:

Personal website: Camiel J. Beukeboom

Personal website: Christian Burgers

MEDIA LITERACY                                                                                                

Title & Authors

Reviewing Media Literacy Intervention Studies for Validity

W. James Potter (University of California at Santa Barbara, USA)

Chan Thai (Santa Clara University, USA)

Highlights

 

• The designs of published studies claiming to test media literacy interventions were analyzed to determine how the conceptual foundation was constructed in each study and whether the study was designed based on those conceptual foundations to determine content and face validity.

• A total of 88 studies were selected after a series of electronic searches of studies that used the term “media literacy intervention” in their keyword lists, titles, and abstracts.

A meaning analysis found that 22 studies (25.0%) provided no conceptual foundation for media literacy, and 21 (23.9%) used an existing definition of media literacy. Despite there being hundreds of definitions for media literacy in the literature, the authors of the remaining 45 studies (51.1%) presented their own definition for media literacy.

• The assessment of validity found that none of the studies presented a test of media literacy that completely captured the elements in their definitions of media literacy, so the content validity of this literature was judged as poor.

• The evaluation of face validity uncovered many problems in a lack of correspondence between what authors intended to measure and what they actually measured.

• The most prevalent discrepancy was with measures of skills where authors frequently measured beliefs about study participants’ levels of skills rather than taking measures of actual performance.

• We pose a series of three questions that illuminate the current nature of the media literacy intervention literature as well as serve to guide future designers of such studies.

Abstract

This study is an examination of validity in published articles that have provided tests of the effectiveness of media literacy interventions. We identified 88 published tests of media literacy interventions then analyzed their content using five coding variables that indicated the degree to which authors of those studies established basic validity. We first conducted a meaning analysis to identify the definitions that authors of those studies presented for media literacy. Then we used those definitions to determine the extent to which those authors provided a complete (content validity) and accurate (face validity) operationalization in the design of their measures.

Download

 

open access verde 

 

Reviewing Media Literacy Intervention Studies for Validity

W. James Potter and Chan Thai

Keywords: Media literacy interventions; validity; meaning analysis; explication; critical analysis;

 

  Filesize 412.36 KB Download 41

 

 

Content

 


I. The Criterion of Validity in Social Science Research
   A. Content Validity

   B. Face Validity

II. Meaning Analysis of Media Literacy

III. Method
   A. Selecting Media Literacy Intervention Studies

   B. Coding Variables
      Media literacy definitions cited
      Focal definition of media literacy
      Definitional elements
      Content validity
      Face validity

   C. Reliability

IV. Results
   A. Presentation of Meaning

   B. Definitional Elements

   C. Content Validity

   D. Face Validity

V. Discussion
   A. Reasonable Standard
      1. Conceptual foundation
      2. Measures of media literacy

   B. Important Questions
      1. Basic research study or evaluation study?
      2. Persuasion or empowerment perspective?
      3. Skills as performances or as beliefs?

VI. Conclusion

 

 

Keywords

Media literacy interventions, validity, meaning analysis, explication, critical analysis.

About the Authors

Authors biographical information:

Personal website: W. James Potter

Personal website: Chan Thai

JoomShaper