Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39839213›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in sociology2024

From speech acts to communicative acts: social network debates about sexual consent.

Elisabeth Torras-Gómez, Arja Krauchenberg, Victor Petuya, Rebeca Marcos, Olga Serradell, Marta Soler-Gallart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in sociology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Elisabeth Torras-GómezVicerectorat de Recerca, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Arja KrauchenbergEuropean Parents' Association, Brussels, Belgium.
Victor PetuyaDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, Spain.
Rebeca MarcosUniversity of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Olga SerradellDepartment of Sociology, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain.
Marta Soler-GallartDepartment of Sociology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Understanding consent is essential to combat sexual violence, a deeply rooted social problem. Amidst its complexities, the scientific literature has emphasized the shortcomings of only considering the speech act-whether the victim-survivor said "yes" or not. Instead, sociological research underscores the need to analyze the whole communicative act where different elements lead to either a power relationship where there is no consent or a dialogic relationship where freedom is granted. Although some research has been conducted on citizens' social media debates on consent, how such debates include the concept of communicative acts to discuss it has not been analyzed yet. Methods: 55 gender-related Instagram and Twitter (now known as X) posts-published and extracted over the course of 14 days-were analyzed. Results: Findings reveal that most posts refer to Power Communicative Acts as a hindrance for consent due to hierarchical power imbalances or to coercion, and called for the need to establish elements of Dialogic Communicative Acts to achieve consent and construct more egalitarian environments. Finally, most posts that considered ethics spoke about the need for perpetrators to be held accountable or offered similar takes on consequentialism. Discussion: These findings help illustrate how several social media debates about consent successfully fall into the Communicative Acts framework.

Indexed as

consentdialogic communicative actsgender violencepower communicative actssocial media analyticssociology

Identifiers

PMID39839213
PMCPMC11747825

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.