Next Article in Journal
How Does Celebrity-Based Brand Endorsement Work in Social Media?—The Instagram Context
Previous Article in Journal
‘Live with the Virus’ Narrative and Pandemic Amnesia in the Governance of COVID-19
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 11
Issue 8
10.3390/socsci11080341
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Informal Learning with a Gender Perspective Transmitted by Influencers through Content on YouTube and Instagram in Spain

by
Alicia Arias-Rodriguez
* and
Ana Sánchez-Bello
Faculty of Education Sciences, Campus de Elviña, University of Coruña, 15071 Coruña, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11(8), 341; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11080341
Submission received: 19 April 2022 / Revised: 19 July 2022 / Accepted: 27 July 2022 / Published: 2 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Gender Studies)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The struggle for gender equality is based on identifying, understanding, and eradicating the causes of inequality. Digital media are and have always been governed by men and, as a consequence, have become another instrument of patriarchy. This article analyses the content created on YouTube and Instagram by four of the most popular influencers in Spain in order to examine the presence of stereotypes and gender roles, the use of sexist or inclusive language, and the influencers’ level of social engagement on issues related to gender equality. A content analysis approach using ATLAS.ti 8 software was chosen, as this method provides information about the sender of the message as the well the message itself and its impact. The findings of the analysis show that influencers transmit sexist roles and stereotypes, use non-inclusive language, and exhibit no social engagement on questions of gender inequality. The study concludes by highlighting the importance of cyberfeminism as a way of promoting gender equality online.

1. Introduction

Traditional mass media such as television, radio, and newspapers are no longer our only sources of information about the world in which we live. More and more, people are turning to alternative communication media in search of a more truthful version of the events happening around them. The growing use of new technologies for information and communication purposes has made them an increasingly powerful tool. Recognising this potential, the so-called cyberfeminist movement has understood that technological activism can be an ally of feminism and the struggle for women’s liberation (Mateos and Gómez 2019; Mujeres en Red 2001; Sánchez-Duarte and Fernández-Romero 2017; Sainz et al. 2020).
The premise of this article is that cyberfeminism should be socially useful. As Faith Wilding (2004), one of the leaders of the Girl Power movement, has observed, ‘[b]eing bad girls on the internet is not by itself going to challenge the status quo’. In order to bring about real change, therefore, cyberfeminism must have a political intention: ‘social cyberfeminism is increasingly focused on online resources and collaborative strategies that connect women’s projects around the world in order to raise awareness of other women’s ideas and experiences, highlight the problems they face and develop joint strategies to combat and overcome all forms of exclusion and inequality’ (Perdomo 2016, p. 9).
New information and communication technology (ICT) is inextricably linked to social networks: virtual communities that bypass the mass media by connecting different groups of people on the basis of different types of relationships (Fundación Telefónica 2018; Tufekci 2013). The different layers of complexity and degrees of interaction involved allow us to analyse these relations as a network or social graph. The annual IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau) Spain report for 2021 reveals that 100% of the Spanish population between the ages of 16 and 70 use at least one social network (i.e., 33.8 million, based on census data for 2021 from the Spanish National Statistics Institute), 93% of the population uses the Internet (31.4 million), and 85% use social media (26.6 million) (Fundación Telefónica 2018; Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE) 2021; Ministerio de Energía, Turismo y Agenda Digital 2020; Salcines-Talledo et al. 2018).
One of the most widely used social networks is Facebook (Arab and Díaz 2015; Fundación Telefónica 2018; IAB Spain 2021). Facebook allows users to communicate and interact with other users via text, images, and video. Because of the wide age range of users (18–44 years), the content on the platform is very varied. Research shows that in the case of the feminist movement, it is used more as a forum for debate than as a tool for mobilisation (Sánchez-Duarte and Fernández-Romero 2017).
Another of the most popular social networks is Twitter, where the bulk of users are aged 18–50. Twitter allows users to express their opinions about different topics, interact in real time, and update information on a continuous basis. Studies show that the platform has a very high user rate among feminist activists, who use it on a regular basis, especially for political purposes (Arab and Díaz 2015; Sánchez-Duarte and Fernández-Romero 2017; Fundación Telefónica 2018; IAB Spain 2021).
One of the most popular social networks among younger users (18–34 years) is Instagram, where the average time spent on the platform is also higher than other networks (2.75 h per week) (Fundación Telefónica 2018; IAB Spain 2021). Instagram is a mainly visual medium, consisting of captioned photographs and videos which users use to share their experiences. Instagram and other networks such as YouTube have given rise to the phenomenon of what have become known as ‘influencers’ (or ‘opinion leaders’), Internet-born role models with the power to influence other people with their content and opinions by establishing a close personal relationship with those who ‘follow’ them (Santamaría and Meana 2017). Significantly, survey results report that 88% of women in Spain under the age of 40 follow at least one influencer on social media (IAB Spain 2021). In most cases, Internet users do not depend on just one social network but are active on several of them at the same time. For this reason, influencers usually promote their channels across multiple social media, especially through Instagram (Elorriaga Illera and Benito 2018; Fundación Telefónica 2018).
The growing popularity of YouTube has seen it become the third most visited website in the world. YouTube is a hosting site that allows users to share and create different types of video content. Regular users are mostly found in the 14–49 age group, with younger viewers now more likely to consume visual content through the site’s channels than through traditional television. YouTube, like Instagram, is also used by so-called influencers, and influencer followers account for 30% of the platform’s total usership (Arab and Díaz 2015; Sánchez-Duarte and Fernández-Romero 2017; IAB Spain 2021).
The influencer phenomenon first emerged around 2000, coinciding with the appearance of social media (Fundación Telefónica 2018; IAB Spain 2021). Influencers are individuals who use social media to construct a reputation for themselves on certain subjects. Their apparent passion for and knowledge about these subjects lends them credibility and the ability to influence consumption habits through trends of their own making. The key to their success is the fact that they emerge naturally: their fame is self-made and their work is therefore seen as enterprising. The first studies on online influencing as a profession have emerged over the past five years (Martín and Martínez 2019; Padilla and Oliver 2018; Velasco 2019; Vicente-Fernández et al. 2019; Cuenca-Piqueras et al. 2021). Research in English-speaking countries in particular has begun to pay increasing attention to the influencer phenomenon as a new form of work, with numerous analyses of influencer figures in the advertising and fashion sectors (Cuenca-Piqueras et al. 2021). All of these studies coincide in highlighting that the self-representations of female influencers online tend to conform to a traditional conception of femininity. Despite the image of female happiness, success, and empowerment they seem to project, the beauty standards promoted are still based on youth and thinness. The problem from a gender equality point of view is the influence these individuals have on younger social media users, since influencers are born into and out of a patriarchal society, and therefore often transmit these problematic values and attitudes to young users, unconsciously or otherwise.
The question is whether better education in social media use can translate into significant gains for the feminist cause. In recent years, traditional feminists and cyberfeminists in particular have focused their efforts on the introduction of non-sexist education into the school curriculum, including the use and power of new technology and social media (Cobo 2019; Donoso-Vázquez 2018; García 2007; Mujeres en Red 2001; Valcárcel 2000). The aim of this new form of education is to help young people to view ICT as an essential part of their personal and professional lives, not just as a tool for sharing information and solving problems. Rather than treating ICT as a skill to be acquired, therefore, young people need to be taught to realise the social and political potential of the resource that they have at their fingertips (Fundación Telefónica 2018; IAB Spain 2021; Santiago et al. 2019).
In fact, one of the main obstacles to women’s participation in ICT begins at school itself, where the attitudes and examples conveyed by teachers are frequently reproduced by their pupils, consciously or unconsciously. Studies show that teachers still tend to use ICT supplementarily, either to illustrate theoretical content or to add variety to their classes (Curbelo and Moreira 2016; Fundación Telefónica 2018; IAB Spain 2021; Mujeres en Red 2001; Santiago et al. 2019).
As children grow up, the digital gender gap becomes more pronounced, with male students tending to show greater initiative in relation to using and accessing ICT, in contrast to greater perseverance on the part of female students (Curbelo and Moreira 2016; Fundación Telefónica 2018; IAB Spain 2021; Mateos and Gómez 2019; Mujeres en Red 2001; Popa and Gavriliu 2015; Sainz et al. 2020). The problem is not so much one of access, therefore, as of unequal use and knowledge. For males, ICT serves a more recreational function, while for females its use is more related to their studies and communication via social media.
Informal education such as that received through social media can lead to the acritical transmission of certain social ideas, such as gender stereotypes, which impact male and female identity differently1 (da Silva and Ferreira 2016; Rodríguez 2011; Sainz 2007; Simkin and Becerra 2013). Gender stereotypes are preconceived sex-based generalisations about an individual’s attributes, interests, and personality that have become so ingrained in our collective consciousness that we are no longer capable of analysing or rationalising them; we simply accept them, understand them and reproduce them as self-evident truths. Stereotypes in general limit the way we think about certain groups of humanity, and gender stereotypes limit the way we see men and women. Both lead to essentialist, reductionist societies and promote segregation (Rodríguez and Bello 2017; Colás-Bravo and Quintero-Rodríguez 2022; Iglesias and Sánchez-Bello 2008; Schugurensky 2000).
The language used in social media reveals a gender bias regarding the roles of men and women in society. This is crucial given the central role played by language in the construction of gender, as exposed and denounced by Butler (1990, citation on ONU 2019) in her pioneering Gender Trouble. Indeed, since the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action agreed at the 4th World Conference on Women (1995) (citation in ONU 2019) has promoted the use of non-discriminatory, gender-inclusive language as a way of eradicating gender bias and fostering a more equal, democratic society.
Most Internet users view social networks as platforms for communication and entertainment, but are not always as aware of how powerful they can be if used correctly. Both the public at large and online opinion leaders (such as influencers) should take into account that everything they say or do online remains and has repercussions. Comments by influencers regarding the feminist movement, for example, can prove controversial and generate debate across the social media spectrum. This raises the question of whether influencers who ally themselves with the cause of equality do so in order to help or to benefit their own interests by piggybacking on a popular trend, and what effect their influence and viral outreach have. The final element of the analysis, therefore, is to examine influencers’ social engagement on issues related to feminism and gender equality in order to assess the qualitative impact and outreach of their online messages and their emotional connection with their followers (Aran-Ramspott et al. 2018; Casado and Carbonell 2018; Jiang and Ngien 2020; Pérez-Torres et al. 2018; Popa and Gavriliu 2015; Reece and Danforth 2017; Sokolova and Perez 2021).
The overall aim of the paper is to provide a detailed survey and analysis of messages transmitted by a selection of Spanish influencers through their different social media channels and how they are received by their followers (based on the rankings of: Fundación Márques de Oliva 2021; IAB Spain 2019; Influencer MArñetingHub 2022; Sanz-Marco et al. 2019; Santamaría and Meana 2017), in order to assess how these messages may be used to promote social change, feminism, and a fairer, more equal society.

2. Methods

The study uses a qualitative methodology to highlight the importance of cyberfeminism and its presence in social media. A content analysis approach was chosen as it provides information about the person who delivers the message, while meeting the triple aim of inference, analysis, and interpretation (Andreu 2002).
The following specific aims were defined for the study:
  • Identify indicators of cyberfeminist practices among Spanish influencers
  • Demonstrate the socio-educational importance of cyberfeminism.

2.1. Analysis Units and Sample Type

In order to assess the social aspects of the influencers’ activity and its influence on and/or benefit for the cyberfeminist movement, a total of twelve materials (including videos from YouTube and posts from Instagram) (see Table 1) were subjected to content analysis using three dimensions: gender roles and stereotypes, the presence of sexist or inclusive language, and social engagement on the part of the influencers (Rodríguez and Bello 2017). The analysis was based on multi-stage cluster sampling, which was obtained in three stages: first, the profiles of each of the influencers were visited. To select them, the study carried out by the Fundación Márques de Oliva (2021) on 500 of the most influential people in Spain was followed. For this work, the four most influential, but who also indicated in their profile that they were feminists or that they followed feminist theories, of that study were selected; secondly, the social networks in which they have the most followers were selected (Instagram was the most valued in all cases, followed by YouTube, in a secondary or complementary role to Instagram). Celebrities (from reality shows, for example) or public figures were voluntarily eliminated, leaving only the so-called “pure” influencers (Fundación Márques de Oliva 2021; IAB Spain 2019; Influencer MArñetingHub 2022; Sanz-Marco et al. 2019; Santamaría and Meana 2017), i.e., YouTubers, Instagrammers, etc.); and, finally, we carried out a process of observation and recording. The analysis took place over a constructed period of 15 days, based on the premise that a sample size of 15 days is effective and efficient to represent 6 months of content on social media websites (Odriozola 2012).

2.2. Content Analysis Categories

The methodological instrument for the study consisted of three contextual dimensions (gender roles and stereotypes, sexist or inclusive language, and social engagement), and a set of more specific indicators, as outlined below (Rodríguez and Bello 2017; Núñez and Hernández 2011)2.
  • Gender roles and stereotypes: We live in a society that dictates symbolically what we are or should be as men and women. The socially constructed images and stereotypes to which we are exposed from birth shape the way we think and behave as adults (Iglesias and Sánchez-Bello 2008). The main indicators in this category are socially established beauty standards; recommendations based on female stereotypes (e.g., clothes, makeup, etc.); and patriarchal stereotypes about women (see Figure 1).
  • Sexist or inclusive language: Language reflects collective thinking and transmits the feelings, thoughts, and actions of a society (Moreno 2000), and the system on which it is based. The main indicators in this category are overuse of generic language (i.e., mainly masculine forms); low occurrence of feminine forms; and the presence of offensive or disrespectful language. While not directly related to sexist language, the final indicator is based on the principle that social media content should be educational and helpful (see Figure 1).
  • Social engagement with issues related to feminist activism and gender equality movements online: This dimension does not deal directly with gender inequalities in society and the ways in which we unconsciously sustain them, but instead focusses on the need for an engaged cyberfeminism. The main indicators in this category are sharing of information related to feminism; involvement in the information shared on their social media; and sharing of useful information on other social issues (see Figure 1).
Based on this categorisation of the key concepts of the analysis, a descriptive codification of the data was carried out (Fernández 2002; Miles et al. 2014). The process of codification demonstrated the recurrence of themes, which were then organised according to the different categories and indicators. Saturation of the emergent themes due to integration and density of the theory was reached when all of the data and all possible variations within the theory had been exhausted (Ardila and Arenas 2013).

2.3. Information Analysis

The data for the study were analysed using the ATLAS.ti 8 programme. By labelling each text fragment and image, ATLAS.ti 8 makes it easier to search the data for patterns and establish classifications, thus yielding stricter, more reliable results (Hwang 2007). The results of the codification process are displayed below in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4.
The study was carried out in accordance with the principles of credibility for qualitative research (Flick 2012). To ensure the reliability of the data and results, the study was conducted with clear objectives and in strict accordance with research standards and the principle of literality. The study’s validity is based on its adherence to the principle of self-critical reflection regarding the possible presence of bias in the research process and its results, and the validity transmitted by the influencers’ followers (o validation from participants). This is because validation is the process through which we make claims and assess the credibility of observations, interpretations, and generalisations (in our case, the YouTube videos and Instagram stories of our influencers). The essential criterion is the degree to which we can draw on the concepts, methods, and inferences of a study (such as Rodríguez and Bello 2017; Núñez and Hernández 2011) as a basis for our own theorising and empirical research. With this reformulation, the essential question of validity becomes whether the scientific community (Barry et al. 1999; Sandín 2000).

3. Results

3.1. Gender Roles and Stereotypes

The results regarding the presence of gender roles and stereotypes are based on an analysis of a selection of videos from the subjects’ respective YouTube channels. The analysis examined the following codes: socially established beauty standards; recommendations based on female stereotypes (e.g., clothing, makeup, etc.); and patriarchal stereotypes about women (see Figure 2).
Figure 2 reveals that all of the influencers coincide in advising their followers of the need to wear makeup and dress femininely in order to ‘feel pretty’(for example, Influencer A: “make up to feel pretty”; Influencer C: “to feel good put on makeup and they will see you pretty”, and Influencer D: “I like to go with excess makeup and provocative clothing so that they look at me”). This message reinforces the idea that ‘defects’ are socially undesirable and should be corrected. Influencer B goes so far as to define the standard of female beauty as tall, thin, athletic, long-haired, bronzed, facial feature, and height (“for women to feel good in all environments they must be thin, with dark skin (that’s why you must take care of yourself all year), if you have Andalusian features better, tall and athletic (go to the gym several times with a trainer) and not if you happen to cut your hair, it should reach the height of your buttocks”). All of the subjects associate these beauty standards with modelling. Changes in the way models dress or accessorise their looks force people who wish to stay ‘on-trend’ to consume new products, while reinforcing stereotypes and problematic behaviours as something normal.

3.2. Sexist or Inclusive Language

The results regarding the use of sexist or inclusive language are based on an analysis of a selection of the subjects’ posts on Instagram. The analysis focused on the following codes: overuse of generic forms; low occurrence of feminine forms; and presence of offensive or disrespectful language (see Figure 3).
The analysis of categories and codes related to the use of sexist or inclusive language did not reveal the presence of any offensive or disrespectful language. As Figure 3 shows, however, all four subjects make frequent use of generic and/or masculine forms to refer to their predominantly female followers. The only subject found to use inclusive language in her posts was Influencer B, who refers to her followers as ‘(beautiful) people’. By contrast, another of the influencers uses the generic masculine plural ‘beautiful people’ to address her followers, in posts and videos alike.
All of the influencers use their posts to promote their own brands and those of their sponsors, and therefore obtain a financial benefit from tagging and talking about their products. During the two-week period of analysis, three of the influencers (A, B, and C) were found to use their posts mainly to promote their own clothing brands and talk about their travels (for example “the clothes I´m wearing today are from my latest collection, it will make you feel very free”; “this jacket really highlights your figure and will look great if you combine it with other clothes from my brand (…)”; “lately, I made a trip with my partner, where we thought about our nearest future, That trip marked me, since going to Bali changes your life and gives you other priorities”), while Influencer D’s posts were more focused on promoting third-party brands and products and her own book, published just prior to the period of analysis.

3.3. Social Engagement

The results regarding social engagement in feminist and gender equality causes are based on an analysis of the subjects’ Instagram stories. The analysis focused on the following codes: sharing information related to feminism; involvement in shared information; and sharing information about other social issues (see Figure 4).
The Instagram ‘stories’ feature allows users to share photos and videos in real time, resulting in more immediate, spontaneous interactions. The results of the analysis showed greater engagement on the part of Influencer B, who attended some of the mass demonstrations that took place all over Spain in protest against the sentence handed down in the trial of a gang rape of a young woman in Pamplona in 2016 (La Manada). The other influencers shared messages of solidarity with the victim, as well as details of the different demonstrations (time, date, place), but did not participate in the information they shared, and did not share information on other issues related to feminist causes.
In relation to the sharing of information on other social issues, Influencers A and B both spoke about a video of a girl being bullied (for example “with this video, I want you to see the negative effects that bullying can have on other people. I don´t understand how you can talk badly, make fun of it, etc.,… when I was little I suffered harassment from some classmates because I had glasses and my teeth weren’t as pretty as they are now that I had surgery at the clinic (…)”), condemning actions of this type and the people who cause them, and offering messages of support and solidarity with the victim.
As Figure 4 shows, however, the 15-day analysis period did not reveal a strong degree of social engagement on the part of any of the influencers. For the most part, the subjects tend to use the Instagram ‘stories’ feature to share their thoughts with their followers, promote brands and products, and talk about their private lives, rather than as a tool for social change.

4. Conclusions

Most of these influencers’ followers are women, especially young women and even teenagers. While fairness and equality are values that all members of society should be taught, it is particularly important to inculcate the message of equality in young people, not just at home and at school, but in all areas of their lives. It seems clear, therefore, that if the lessons of egalitarian, non-sexist education are not reflected in social media by the people these youngsters admire and wish to be like, part of that message will fall by the wayside.
One aspect of this is the need to eradicate stereotypes. As the analysis of influencer content has shown, the stereotypical idea of beauty is still firmly associated with women and beauty standards lack diversity and inclusivity: beauty is a tall, thin, feminine woman, and any deviation from this norm is seen as a defect to be corrected.
The same lack of inclusivity is observed in the use of language. While the analysis did not find evidence of language that could be considered offensive towards women, it did identify a tendency to subsume women under generic masculine forms. In contrast to English, which does not make grammatical distinctions between genders, Spanish nouns, adjectives, and determiners are all marked for gender (Ackerman 2019; Escandell-Vidal 2018; Harris 1991)7. In this regard, the language used by the influencers surveyed in this study certainly does not follow the recommendation issued by Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura (UNESCO) (2019) in relation to its own documents to ‘avoid, as far as possible, the use of terms that refer implicitly or explicitly to one sex only, except in reference to positive measures in favour of women’ (Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura (UNESCO) 2019, p. 100).
While language itself cannot be said to be sexist or exclusive, the use we make of it can be. Linguistic sexism occurs when the language used reproduces an inflated image of the role and presence of men, while ignoring the experience and contribution of women and the diverse reality of human existence (Begoechea 2015; Rubio 2016). When we use language to project learned stereotypes based on an androcentric worldview of the masculine perspective as universal, generalisable, and value-free, we are helping to perpetuate the perception in our collective consciousness of women as subsidiary, secondary and dispensable.
Social engagement was generally absent and only observed in relation to particularly serious, high media profile incidents, such as a group rape or the murder of a woman by her partner. In fact, much of the copious information collected for the study was found to lack any social purpose. While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with using social media as a form of distraction or entertainment, the study shows that their potential as a tool for the promotion and development of cyberfeminism has been largely ignored. The solution lies in raising awareness of this potential, not just among younger users, but also among those with the power to influence others through their online content.
Extensive research into the activist and political potential of social media has been carried out over the past decade (Casero-Ripollés 2015; Castells 2009; Rovira 2017; Postill 2018; Treré 2012). The growing importance and influence of digital media has not, however, been accompanied by an evolution away from patriarchal attitudes and identities (Macharia 2015), as evidenced by humour that denigrates women or perpetuates female stereotypes, the use of terms such as ‘feminazi’, mockery of women who enter traditional bastions of male power, praise for women based on their physical appearance only, justification of violence against women and victim blaming, etc. (Araüna et al. 2019; Demirhan and Çakır-Demirhan 2015; Ruíz 2016). To combat this onslaught of symbolic violence against women, cyberactivism has the potential to counteract patriarchal discourses and influence the social agenda by connecting different groups of feminists and pooling their ideas, resources, and proposals via social media (Árdevol and Gómez 2012; Burgos 2017; Keller et al. 2016; Harris 1991; Sokolova and Perez 2021; Varela 2020).
The failure to date to make full use of social media as a tool for social and political change and female empowerment may be due to misconceptions about cyberfeminism among content creators and consumers alike, and an underestimation of the movement’s importance. The results of the analysis highlight the need for greater online and offline education in this area, and a greater realisation that the image represented on social media is not a reflection of what people should be, but an illusion that bears little or no relation to the world in which we live.
There is so much empty content and information on these influencers’ social media (particularly in the case of Instagram) that issues such as covert advertising and the reproduction of capitalist patriarchal stereotypes often go unnoticed, while any useful or socially beneficial information ends up lost or forgotten about.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, A.S.-B.; formal analysis, A.A.-R. and A.S.-B.; methodology, A.A.-R.; writing—original draft preparation, A.A.-R. and A.S.-B.; writing—review and editing, A.A.-R. and A.S.-B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NRF.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval for this study was waived because this type of study does not go through the ethics committee of the University of A Coruña (Spain). This committee considers that they are the responsibility of the authors.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable here.

Acknowledgments

Analyses of anonymously collected web pages are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Notes

1
Schugurensky (2000) divides informal education into three categories: self-directed learning, incidental learning, and socialisation. In this study, we use the term ‘informal education’ as a synonym of socialisation.
2
As the analysis is about influencers’ material in Spanish, the comments of the figures appear in this language but with a footnote with the English translation. In this way, we do not lose the expressions of the source language.
3
Terms that appear in Figure 1 (following the order of the dimensions that appear in the “Content analysis categories” section): (a) presence of gender roles and stereotypes (“presencia de roles y estereotipos de género”): stereotyped ideas (“ideas estereotipadas”); stereotyped feminisms (“estereotipos feminismos”) and canons of beauty (“canonces de belleza”); (b) inclusive and sexist language (“lenguaje inclusivo y sexista”): offensive language (“lenguaje ofensivo”); feminine use (“uso femenino”) and abuse of the generic (“abuso del genérico”) and c)social implication (“implicación social”): feminism (“feminismo”); shared information (“información compartida”) and other social issues (“otras temáticas sociales”).
4
Terms that appear in Figure 2 (taking into account the dimension and the categories that appear in Figure 1. The dimension is Presence of gender roles and stereotypes (“presencia de roles y estereotipos de género”)): (a) canons of beauty (“canones de belleza”): excessive makeup (“excesiva de su maquillaje”); deals with the issue of bullying (“trata la temática del bullying”); highly polished appearance (“apariencia muy pulida”); the way of dressing (“la forma de vestir”) and takes great care of the makeup (“cuida mucho el maquillaje”); (b) stereotyped ideas (“ideas estereotipadas”): dress must be princess (“vestido debe ser de princesa”); sweetie (“cariño”); generosity (“generosidad”); maternal instinct (“instito maternal”) and importance of marriage (“importancia del matrimonio”) and c) feminist stereotypes (“estereotipos feminismo”): Incite consumerism (“iniciar al comsumismo”); hairdressing (“peluquería”); designer clothes (“ropa de un diseñador”); tour of her dressing room (“tour por su vestidor”) and immense amount of clothes (“cantidad inmensa de ropa”).
5
Terms that appear in Figure 3 (bearing in mind the dimension and the categories that appear in Figure 1. The dimension is inclusive and sexist language (“lenguaje sexista e inclusivo”)): (a) feminine use (“uso femenino”): people (“personas”); reucrre often to the generic (“recurre a menudo al generico”); term “guys” (“ termino “guys”“); their thoughts (“sus pensamientos”) and people (“gente”); (b) offensive language (“lenguaje ofensivo”): funcking (“funcking”) and (c) abuse of the generic (“abuso del genérico”): (a) inclusive language (“lenguaje inclusivo”); use English (“utiliza el inglés”); readers (“lectores”); everyone (“todos”) and you (“vosotros”).
6
Terms that appear in Figure 4 (bearing in mind the dimension and the categories that appear in Figure 1. The dimension is social implication (“implicación social”)): (a) feminism (“feminismo”): information on the sentence case of “the herd “ (“información de la setencia caso de “la manada””); learn about feminism (“aprender sobre el feminismo”); share your hashtag against the sentence case of “the herd”(“comparte un hastag contra setencia caso de “la manada”); (b) shared information (“información compartida”): against the sentence towards “the herd” (“contra de la sentencia hacia “la manada”); general information about your trips (“informacion general de sus viajes”); you cannot attend demonstrations in the case of “the herd” (“no puede ir manifestaciones la setencia caso de “la manada”“) and specific information (“información puntual”) and c) other social issues (“otras temáticas sociales”): (a) case of bullying (“caso de bullying”); encourage reading (“incita a la lectura”); covert posts (“publicaciones encubierta”) and bullying themed (“tematica de bullying”).
7
For example, whereas in the Spanish phrase ‘la mujer buena y el hombre bueno’, the adjective bueno/a is marked for gender according to the sex (and gender) of the noun, in the English equivalent, there is no distinction between the adjectives associated with each noun: ‘the good woman and the good man’.

References

  1. Ackerman, Lauren M. 2019. Syntactic and cognitive issues in investigating gendered coreference. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4: 5–27. Available online: https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/5224 (accessed on 19 April 2022). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Andreu, Jaime. 2002. Las Técnicas de Análisis de Contenido: Una Revisión Actualizada. Sede de Sevilla: Fundación Centro de Estudios Andaluces, Available online: https://bit.ly/3BTot0A (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  3. Arab, L. Elías, and Alejandra Díaz. 2015. Impacto de las redes sociales e internet en la adolescencia: Aspectos positivos y negativos. Revista Médica Clínica Las Condes 26: 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Aran-Ramspott, Sue, Maddalena Fedele, and Anna Tarragó. 2018. Youtubers’ social functions and their influence on pre-adolescence. [Funciones sociales de los youtubers y su influencia en la preadolescencia]. Comunicar 26: 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Araüna, Núria, Cilia Willem, and Iolanda Tortajada Giménez. 2019. Discursos feministas y vídeos de youtubers: Límites y horizontes de la politización yo-céntrica. Quaderns del CAC 45: 25–34. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=7074189 (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  6. Árdevol, Elisend, and Edgar Gómez. 2012. Las Tecnologías Digitales en el Proceso de Investigación Social: Reflexiones Teóricas y Metodológicas Desde la Etnografía Virtual. Cataluña: Fundación CIDOB (Spain), Available online: https://www.cidob.org/es/articulos/monografias/politicas_de_conocimiento_y_dinamicas_interculturales_acciones_innovaciones_transformaciones/las_tecnologias_digitales_en_el_proceso_de_investigacion_social_reflexiones_teoricas_y_metodologicas_desde_la_etnografia_virtual (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  7. Ardila, Erwin Esaú, and Juan Felipe Rueda Arenas. 2013. La saturación teórica en la teoría fundamentada: Su delimitación en el análisis de trayectorias de vida de víctimas del desplazamiento forzado en Colombia. Revista Colombiana de Sociología 36: 93–114. Available online: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/recs/article/view/41641 (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  8. Barry, Christine A., Nicky Britten, Nick Barber, Colin Bradley, and Fiona Stevenson. 1999. Using reflexivity to optimize teamwork in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research 9: 26–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Begoechea, Mercedes. 2015. Lengua y Género. Madrid: Madrid Síntesis. [Google Scholar]
  10. Burgos, Edixela Karitza. 2017. El Ciberactivismo: Perspectivas conceptuales y debates sobre la movilización social y política. Revista Contribuciones a las Ciencias Sociales, 1–5. Available online: http://www.eumed.net/rev/cccss/2017/02/ciberactivismo.html (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  11. Casado, Carla, and Xavier Carbonell. 2018. La influencia de la personalidad en el uso de Instagram. Aloma: Revista de Psicologia, Ciències de L’educació i de L’esport 36: 23–31. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/La-influencia-de-la-personalidad-en-el-uso-de-Riera-Carbonell/525ef8701e97eee1225b566c579ca9675a709255 (accessed on 19 April 2022). [CrossRef]
  12. Casero-Ripollés, Andreu. 2015. Estrategias y prácticas comunicativas del activismo político en las redes sociales en España. Historia y Comunicación Social 20: 535–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Castells, Manuel. 2009. Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cobo, Rosa. 2019. Cuarta ola feminista y la violencia sexual. Paradigma: Revista Universitaria de Cultura 22: 134–38. Available online: https://bit.ly/3DMxp8G (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  15. Colás-Bravo, Pilar, and Iván Quintero-Rodríguez. 2022. YouTube como herramienta para el aprendizaje informal. Profesional de la Información 31: 310–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cuenca-Piqueras, Cristina, María José González Moreno, and Juan Carlos Checa Olmos. 2021. ¿Empoderadas u objetivadas? Análisis de las ciberfeminidades en las influencers de moda. Investigaciones Feministas 12: 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Curbelo, Dayana, and Natalia Moreira. 2016. Adolescentes y tecnologías en el aula. Un análisis desde la perspectiva de género. Congreso Iberoamericano de Ciencia, Tecnología, Innovación y Educación 487: 1–22. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/10793801/Adolescentes_y_tecnolog%C3%ADas_en_el_aula_An%C3%A1lisis_desde_la_perspectiva_de_g%C3%A9nero (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  18. da Silva, Cleilton Alves, and Carlos Ferreira. 2016. Las redes sociales y el aprendizaje informal de estudiantes de educación superior. Acción Pedagógica 25: 6–20. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6224935 (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  19. Demirhan, Kamil, and Derya Çakır-Demirhan. 2015. Gender and politics: Patriarchal discourse on social media. Public Relations Review 41: 308–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Donoso-Vázquez, Trinidad. 2018. Perspectiva de género en la Universidad como motor de innovación. In La Universidad en Clave de Género. Edited by Angeles Rebollo-Catalán, Esther Ruíz and Luisa Vega-Caro. Barcelona: Ediciones Octaedro, pp. 23–52. Available online: https://bit.ly/2XnPKcI (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  21. Elorriaga Illera, Angeriñe, and Sergio Monge Benito. 2018. La profesionalización de los youtubers: El caso de Verdeliss y las marcas. Revista Latina De Comunicación Social 73: 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Escandell-Vidal, Victoria M. 2018. Reflexiones sobre el género como categoría gramatical. Cambio ecológico y tipología lingüística. In De la Lingüística a la Semiótica: Trayectorias y Horizontes del Estudio de la Comunicación. Edited by Maria Ninova. Sofia: Bulgaria Universidad San Clemente de Ojrid, pp. 1–28. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326583738_REFLEXIONES_SOBRE_EL_GENERO_COMO_CATEGORIA_GRAMATICAL_CAMBIO_ECOLOGICO_Y_TIPOLOGIA_LINGUISTICA (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  23. Fernández, Flory. 2002. El análisis de contenido como ayuda metodológica para la investigación. Revista Ciencias Sociales 2: 35–53. Available online: https://bit.ly/3n0eSz0 (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  24. Flick, Uwe. 2012. Introducción a la Investigación Cualitativa. Barcelona: Morata. [Google Scholar]
  25. Fundación Márques de Oliva. 2021. Los 50 Influencersmmás Importantes de España. Madrid: Madrid Fundación Márques de Oliva, Available online: https://fundacionmarquesdeoliva.com/estudio-de-los-500-espanoles-mas-influyentes-de-2021/los-50-influencers-mas-importantes-de-espana-en-2021/ (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  26. Fundación Telefónica. 2018. Sociedad Digital en España 2017. Madrid: Madrid Fundación Telefónica España, Available online: https://bit.ly/30tnmH7 (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  27. García, Almudena. 2007. Cyborgs, mujeres y debates. El ciberfeminismo como teoría crítica. Barataria. Revista Castellano-Manchega de Ciencias Sociales 8: 13–26. Available online: https://bit.ly/3aRoE0t (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  28. Harris, James W. 1991. The exponence of gender in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 27–62. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178707?origin=JSTOR-pdf#metadata_info_tab_contents (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  29. Hwang, Sungsoo. 2007. Utilizing qualitative data analysis software: A review of ATLAS.ti. Social Science Computer Review 26: 519–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. IAB Spain. 2019. Marketing de Influencers. Libro Blanco. Madrid: IAB Spain, Available online: https://www.amic.media/media/files/file_352_2145.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  31. IAB Spain. 2021. Estudio Anual de Redes Sociales 2021. Madrid: IAB Spain, Available online: https://bit.ly/3AJKFcp (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  32. Iglesias, Ana, and Ana Sánchez-Bello. 2008. Currículum oculto en el aula, estereotipos en acción. In Educar en la Ciudadanía: Perspectivas Feministas. Edited by Rosa Cobo. Barcelona: La Catarata, pp. 123–50. Available online: https://bit.ly/3vmC5yV (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  33. Influencer MarñetingHub. 2022. El Estado de Marketing de Influencers 2022: Informe de Referencia. Influencer MarñetingHub. Available online: https://influencermarketinghub.com/influencer-marketing-benchmark-report/ (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  34. Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE). 2021. Equipamiento y uso de TIC en los Hogares 2020. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE), Available online: https://bit.ly/3BRNV6G (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  35. Jiang, Shaohai, and Annabel Ngien. 2020. The effects of Instagram use, social comparison, and self-esteem on social anxiety: A survey study in Singapore. Social Media + Society 6: 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Keller, Jessalynn, Kaitlynn Mendes, and Jessica Ringrose. 2016. Speaking “unspeakable things”; documenting digital feminist responses to rape culture. Journal of Gender Studies 27: 22–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Macharia, Sarah. 2015. Who Makes the News? Global Media Monitoring Project (GMMP). Toronto: WACC. [Google Scholar]
  38. Martín, María Teresa, and María Yolanda Martínez. 2019. Mujeres ilustradoras en Instagram: Las influencers digitales más comprometidas con la igualdad de género en las redes sociales/Women illustrators on Instagram: Digital influencers more committed to gender equality in social networks. Revista Internacional de Cultura Visual 6: 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mateos, Sara, and Clara Gómez. 2019. Libro Blanco de la Mujer en el Ámbito Tecnológico; Madrid: Ministerio de Economía y Empresa. Available online: https://bit.ly/3j5U6g8 (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  40. Miles, Mateo, Michael Huberman, and Johnny Saldaña. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis. A Methods Sourcebook. New York: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  41. Ministerio de Energía, Turismo y Agenda Digital. 2020. La sociedad en Red. Transformación digital en España. Informe Anual 2019; Madrdid: Ministerio de Energía, Turismo y Agenda Digital. Available online: https://bit.ly/3lNR2qM (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  42. Moreno, Montserrat. 2000. Cómo se Enseña a ser Niña: El Sexismo en la Escuela, 3rd ed. Madrid: Icaria. [Google Scholar]
  43. Mujeres en Red. 2001. Las cyborgs. Ciberfeminismo. Mujeres en Red 8: 1–5. Available online: https://bit.ly/3aIlFHO (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  44. Núñez, Sonia, and María Hernández. 2011. Prácticas Para el Ciberfeminismo. Uso de Identidades en la Red Como Nuevo Espacio de Comunicación. Madrid: Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. [Google Scholar]
  45. Odriozola, Javier. 2012. Análisis de contenido de los cibermedios generalistas españoles. Características y adscripción temática de las noticias principales de portada. Comunicación y Sociedad 25: 279–304. Available online: https://bit.ly/3BPqkDz (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  46. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura (UNESCO). 2019. Recomendaciones Para Un Uso No Sexista del Lenguaje. New York: UNESCO, Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000114950 (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  47. Organización de Naciones Unidas (ONU). 2019. Lenguaje Inclusivo en Cuanto al Género. New York: Organización de Naciones Unidas, Available online: https://www.un.org/es/gender-inclusive-language/guidelines.shtml (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  48. Padilla, Graciela, and Ana Belén Oliver. 2018. Instagramers e influencers. El escaparate de la moda que eligen los jóvenes menores españoles. Revista Internacional de Investigación en Comunicación 18: 42–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Perdomo, Inmaculada. 2016. Género y tecnologías. Ciberfeminismos y construcción de la tecnocultura actual. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencias, Tecnología y Sociedad 11: 171–93. Available online: https://bit.ly/3aNbxOa (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  50. Pérez-Torres, Vanessa, Yolanda Pastor-Ruiz, and Sara Abarrou-Ben-Boubaker. 2018. Youtuber videos and the construction of adolescent identity. [Los youtubers y la construcción de la identidad adolescente]. Comunicar 26: 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Popa, Dorin, and Delia Gavriliu. 2015. Gender Representations and Digital Media. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 180: 1199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Postill, John. 2018. The Rise of Nerd Politics. Digital Activism and Political Change. London: Pluto Press. [Google Scholar]
  53. Reece, Andréz G., and Christopher M. Danforth. 2017. Instagram photos reveal predictive markers of depression. Epj Data Science 6: 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Rodríguez, Alicia Arias, and Ana Sánchez Bello. 2017. La cimentación social del concepto mujer en la red social Facebook. Revista de Investigación Educativa 35: 181–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Rodríguez, Carmen. 2011. Género y Cultura Escolar. Barcelona: Morata. [Google Scholar]
  56. Rovira, Guiomar. 2017. Activismo en red y Multitudes Conectadas. Madrid: Icaria. [Google Scholar]
  57. Rubio, Ana. 2016. El lenguaje y la igualdad efectiva de mujeres y hombres. Revista Bioética y Derecho 38: 5–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ruíz, Margarita. 2016. Sexismo en Línea. WhatsApp, Nuevo Mecanismo de Reproducción del Sexismo. Jaén: Diputación de Jaén. [Google Scholar]
  59. Sainz, Milagros, Lidia Arrojo, and Celia Castaño. 2020. Mujeres y Digitalización. De las Brechas a los Algoritmos. Madrid: Instituto de la Mujer y para la Igualdad de Oportunidades, Available online: https://bit.ly/3FTbPkI (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  60. Sainz, Milagros. 2007. Aspectos Psicosociales de las Diferencias de Género en Actitudes Hacia las Nuevas Tecnologías en Adolescentes. Doctoral thesis, Madrid Injuve, Madrid, Spain. [Google Scholar]
  61. Salcines-Talledo, Irina, Antonia Ramírez-García, and Natalia González-Fernández. 2018. Smartphones y tablets en familia. Construcción de un instrumento diagnóstico. Aula Abierta 47: 265–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sánchez-Duarte, José-Manuel, and Diana Fernández-Romero. 2017. Subactivismo feminista y repertorios de acción colectiva digitales. Prácticas ciberfeministas en Twitter. El Profesional de la Información 26: 894–902. Available online: https://bit.ly/30pJJgC (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  63. Sandín, María Paz. 2000. Criterios de validez en la investigación cualitativa: De la objetividad a la solidaridad. Revista de Investigación Educativa 18: 223–42. Available online: https://revistas.um.es/rie/article/view/121561 (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  64. Santamaría, Elena, and Rufino Meana. 2017. Redes sociales y ‘fenómeno influencer’ reflexiones desde una perspectiva psicológica. Miscelánea Comillas: Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales 75: 443–69. Available online: https://bit.ly/3APU2HB (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  65. Santiago, Michael, Cristina Permisan, and Manuel Francisco Romero. 2019. Consulta a docentes del Máster de Profesorado de Secundaria sobre la alfabetización mediática e informacional (AMI). Diseño y validación del cuestionario. Revista Complutense De Educación 30: 1045–66. Available online: https://bit.ly/3aHxP3M (accessed on 19 April 2022). [CrossRef]
  66. Sanz-Marco, Paloma, Gloria Jiménez-Marín, and Rodrígo Elias Zambrano. 2019. La imcorporación de la figura del influencer en la campaña pubicitaria. Consecuencias para la agencia de publicidad españolas. Revista de Estrategia, Tendencia e Innovación en Comunicación 18: 63–86. [Google Scholar]
  67. Schugurensky, Daniel. 2000. The Forms of Informal Learning. Towards a Conceptualization of the Field; London Centre for the study of Education and Labor, OISE/UT. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/1807/2733 (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  68. Simkin, Hugo, and Gastón Becerra. 2013. El proceso de socialización. Apuntes para su exploración en el campo psicosocial. Ciencia, Docencia y Tecnología 14: 119–42. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4696738 (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  69. Sokolova, Karinam, and Charles Perez. 2021. You follow fitness influencers on YouTube. But do you actually exercise? How parasocial relationships, and watching fitness influencers, relate to intentions to exercise. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58: 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Treré, Emiliano. 2012. Social movements as information ecologies: Exploring the coevolution of multiple Internet technologies for activism. International Journal of Communication 6: 2359–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Tufekci, Zeynep. 2013. ‘Not This One’ Social Movements, the Attention Economy, and Microcelebrity Networked Activism. American Behavioral Scientist 57: 848–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Valcárcel, Amelia. 2000. La memoria colectiva y los retos del feminismo. In Los Desafíos del Feminismo Ante el Siglo XXI. Edited by Rocio Romero and Amelia Valcárcel. Madrid: Hypatia, pp. 19–54. Available online: https://bit.ly/3FU9kP9 (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  73. Varela, Nuria. 2020. El tsunami feminista. Revista Nueva Sociedad 286: 93–106. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=7319280 (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  74. Velasco, Ana María. 2019. La moda en los medios de comunicación: De la prensa femenina tradicional a la política y los/as influencers. Revista Prisma Social 24: 153–85. Available online: https://revistaprismasocial.es/article/view/2845 (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  75. Vicente-Fernández, Pilar, Raquel Vinader-Segura, and Sara Gallego-Trijueque. 2019. La comunicación de moda en YouTube: Análisis del género haul en el caso de Dulceida. Prisma Social: Revista de Investigación Social 24: 77–98. [Google Scholar]
  76. Wilding, Faith. 2004. ¿Dónde está el feminismo en el ciberfeminismo? Lectora. Revista de Dones i Textualitat 10: 141–51. Available online: https://bit.ly/3j7Wzqg (accessed on 19 April 2022).
Socsci 11 00341 g001 550
Figure 1. Descriptive codification of analysis units: categories and codes.3
Figure 1. Descriptive codification of analysis units: categories and codes.3
Socsci 11 00341 g001
Socsci 11 00341 g002 550
Figure 2. Categories and codes: Gender roles and stereotypes.4
Figure 2. Categories and codes: Gender roles and stereotypes.4
Socsci 11 00341 g002
Socsci 11 00341 g003 550
Figure 3. Categories and codes: Sexist or inclusive language.5
Figure 3. Categories and codes: Sexist or inclusive language.5
Socsci 11 00341 g003
Socsci 11 00341 g004 550
Figure 4. Categories and codes: Social engagement.6
Figure 4. Categories and codes: Social engagement.6
Socsci 11 00341 g004
Table
Table 1. Instagram and YouTube channels.
Table 1. Instagram and YouTube channels.
InfluencerDimension
Influencer AGender roles and stereotypes
Presence of sexist or inclusive language
Social engagement
Influencer BGender roles and stereotypes
Presence of sexist or inclusive language
Social engagement
Influencer CGender roles and stereotypes
Presence of sexist or inclusive language
Social engagement
Influencer DGender roles and stereotypes
Presence of sexist or inclusive language
Social engagement
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Arias-Rodriguez, A.; Sánchez-Bello, A. Informal Learning with a Gender Perspective Transmitted by Influencers through Content on YouTube and Instagram in Spain. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 341. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11080341

AMA Style

Arias-Rodriguez A, Sánchez-Bello A. Informal Learning with a Gender Perspective Transmitted by Influencers through Content on YouTube and Instagram in Spain. Social Sciences. 2022; 11(8):341. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11080341

Chicago/Turabian Style

Arias-Rodriguez, Alicia, and Ana Sánchez-Bello. 2022. "Informal Learning with a Gender Perspective Transmitted by Influencers through Content on YouTube and Instagram in Spain" Social Sciences 11, no. 8: 341. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11080341

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop