Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38967403›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of social psychology2025

A mixed-methods approach to understand victimization discourses by opposing feminist sub-groups on social media.

Christina Maxwell, Hema Preya Selvanathan, Sam Hames, Charlie R Crimston, Jolanda Jetten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of social psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Christina MaxwellThe University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5821-7515
Hema Preya SelvanathanThe University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Sam HamesThe University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Charlie R CrimstonThe Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Jolanda JettenThe University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Opposing social movements are groups that have conflicting objectives on a shared social justice issue. To maximize the probability of their movement's success, groups can strategically portray their group in a favourable manner while discrediting their opposition. One such approach involves the construction of victimization discourses. In this research, we combined topic modelling and critical discursive psychology to explore how opposing groups within the feminist movement used victimization as a lens to understand their movements in relation to transgender women. We compiled a dataset of over 40,000 tweets from 14 UK-based feminist accounts that included transgender women as women (the pro-inclusion group) and 13 accounts, that excluded transgender women (the anti-inclusion group). Our results revealed differences in how victimization was employed by the opposing movements: pro-inclusion groups drew on repertoires that created a sense of shared victimhood between cisgender women and transgender women, while anti-inclusion groups invoked a competitive victimhood repertoire. Both groups also challenged and delegitimised their oppositions' constructions of feminism and victimhood. These findings add to our understanding of the communication strategies used by opposing movements to achieve their mobilization goals.

Indexed as

Crime VictimsFeminismSocial MediaTransgender PersonsAdultFemaleHumansMaleSocial JusticeUnited Kingdomcollective victimhoodcritical discursive psychologyfeminisminclusionsocial mediasocial movementstopic modelling

Identifiers

PMID38967403
PMCPMC11600392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.