Portrayals of female scientists in science fiction tend to be rare and often distorted. Our research investigates the social media discourse related to public perceptions of the portrayals of scientists in science fiction. We explore the following questions: How does audience discourse about a female scientist protagonist in a science fiction film compare with that about a male scientist in a comparable movie? And, what fraction of discourse in each case is dedicated to (a) comments on physical appearance and (b) incredulity that the character is a scientist? Using automated nonparametric sentiment analysis software that employs an intelligent algorithm informed by human coding, we analyze Twitter discourse around the release of two summer 2011 science fiction blockbusters with scientists in lead roles: Thor and Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Although scholars have pointed to sexualized portrayals of women scientists in popular media, we found relatively few mentions of the attractiveness of an admittedly attractive female scientist. Additionally, audience discourse was not centered on the implausibility of the female scientist. This is particularly meaningful when combined with previous research showing that strong women in lead roles do not decrease profitability of science fiction films.
AndreT.WhighamM.HendricksonA.ChambersS. (1999). Competency beliefs, positive affect, and gender stereotypes of elementary students and their parents about science versus other school subjects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 719-747.
3.
BainbridgeW. S. (1982). Women in science fiction. Sex Roles, 8, 1081-1093.
4.
BansalM.CardieC.LeeL. (2008). The power of negative thinking: Exploiting label disagreement in the min-cut classification framework. In Proceedings of COLING: Companion volume: Posters. Retrieved from http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/llee/papers/disagree.pdf
5.
BechdelA. (1986). Dykes to watch out for. Ann Arbor, MI: Firebrand Books.
6.
BinaliH.PotdarV.WuC. (2009, February). A state of the art opinion mining and its application domains. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology, Gippsland, Australia.
BrossardD. (2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3). doi:10.1073/pnas.1212744110
BuschowC.SchneiderB.UeberheideS. (2014). Tweeting television: Exploring communication activities on Twitter while watching TV. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 39, 129-149.
CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 3157-3162. doi:10.1073/pnas.1014871108
ChewC.EysenbachG. (2010). Pandemics in the age of Twitter: Content analysis of tweets during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak. PLoS ONE, 5, e14118. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014118
15.
ChimbaM.KitzingerJ. (2010). Bimbo or boffin? Women in science: An analysis of media representations and how female scientists negotiate cultural contradictions. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 609-624.
16.
ChmielA.SobkowiczP.SienkiewiczJ.PaltoglouG.BuckleyK.ThelwallM.HolystJ. A. (2011). Negative emotions boost users activity at BBC Forum. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 390, 2936-2944.
17.
ChristensenC. (2011). Twitter revolutions? Addressing social media and dissent. Communication Review, 14, 155-157.
18.
ConradJ. G.SchilderF. (2007, June). Opinion mining in legal blogs. Paper presented at the ICAIL01: The 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York, NY.
19.
DudoA.BrossardD.ShanahanJ.ScheufeleD. A.MorganM.SignorielliN. (2011). Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science. Communication Research, 38, 754-777. doi:10.1177/0093650210384988
FlickerE. (2003). Between brains and breasts—Women scientists in fiction film: On the marginalization and sexualization of scientific competence. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 307-318. doi:10.1177/0963662503123009
22.
FlickerE. (2008). Women scientists in mainstream film: Social role models—A contribution to the public understanding of science from the perspective of film sociology. In HüppaufB. R.WeingartP. (Eds.), Science images and popular images of the sciences (pp. 241-256). New York, NY: Routledge.
23.
GauntlettD. (1998). Ten things wrong with the “effects” model. In DickinsonR.HarindranathR.LinnéO. (Eds.), Approaches to audiences—A reader (pp. 120-130). London, England: Arnold.
24.
GerbnerG. (1987). Science on television: How it affects public conceptions. Issues in Science and Technology, 3(3), 109-115.
25.
GerbnerG.GrossL. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 172-194.
26.
GerbnerG.GrossL.MorganM.SignorielliN. (1986). Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process. In BryantJ.ZillmannD. (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects. Retrieved from http://web.asc.upenn.edu/gerbner/Asset.aspx?assetID=1591
HirschP. (1980). The “scary” world of the nonviewer and other anomalies: A reanalysis of Gerbner et al.’s finding of cultivation analysis. Communication Research, 7, 403-456.
30.
HirschP. (1981). On not learning from one’s own mistakes: A reanalysis of Gerbner et al.’s findings on cultivation analysis, Part 2. Communication Research, 8, 3-37.
31.
HopkinsD. J.KingG. (2010). A method of automated nonparametric content analysis for social science. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 229-247.
32.
JacksonJ. K. (2011). Doomsday ecology and empathy for nature: Women scientists in “B” horror movies. Science Communication, 33, 533-555. doi:10.1177/1075547011417893
33.
JenkinsH.FordS.GreenJ. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York: NYU Press.
KramerA. D.GuilloryJ. E.HancockJ. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 8788-8790. doi:101.1073/pnas.1320040111
38.
KwonN.ShulmanS. W.HovyE. (2006, May). Multidimensional text analysis for eRulemaking. Paper presented at the 7th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, New York, NY.
39.
LazerD.PentlandA.AdamicL.AralS.BarabásiA.-L.BrewerD.. . . Van AlstyneM. (2009). Computational social science. Science, 323, 721-723. doi:10.1126/science.1167742
40.
LeeD.JeongO.-R.LeeS.-g. (2008, February). Opinion mining of customer feedback data on the web. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication, New York, NY.
41.
MerrickH. (2012). Challenging implicit gender bias in science: Positive representations of female scientists in fiction. Journal of Community Positive Practices, 4, 744-768.
MorenoM. A.GoniuN.MorenoP. S.DiekemaD. (2013). Ethics of social media research: Common concerns and practical considerations. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 12, 708-713. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0334
46.
MorganM.ShanahanJ. (2010). The state of cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54, 337-355. doi:10.1080/08838151003735018
47.
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2015). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/
O’TooleK. H. (2001). A sociocultural analysis of the gender and racial representations in films offering a vision of the future of humanity (Doctoral dissertation). Washington, DC: American University.
51.
PangB.LeeL. (2008). Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 2(1-2), 1-135. doi:10.1561/1500000001
52.
PansegrauP. (2008). Stereotypes and images of scientists in fiction films. In HüppaufB. R.WeingartP. (Eds.), Science images and popular images of the sciences (pp. 257-266). New York, NY: Routledge.
53.
PapacharissiZ.OliveiraM. D. (2012). Affective news and networked publics: The rhythms of news storytelling on #Egypt. Journal of Communication, 62, 266-282. doi:10.1111/J.1460-2466.2012.01630.X
54.
PearceW.HolmbergK.HellstenI.NerlichB. (2014). Climate change on Twitter: Topics, communities and conversations about the 2013 IPCC Working Group 1 report. PLoS ONE, 9, e94785. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0094785
PotterW. J. (1993). Cultivation theory and research: A conceptual critique. Human Communication Research, 19, 564-601.
57.
RungeK. K.YeoS. K.CacciatoreM.ScheufeleD. A.BrossardD.XenosM.. . . SuL. Y. F. (2013). Tweeting nano: How public discourses about nanotechnology develop in social media environments. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 15, 1381. doi:10.1007/S11051-012-1381-8
58.
ScheufeleD. A. (2013). Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 14040-14047.
59.
ShanahanJ.MorganM. (1999). Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research. London, England: Cambridge University Press.
60.
ShanahanJ.ScheufeleD. A. (2013). Cultivation and the spiral of silence: Theoretical and empirical intersections. In MorganM.ShanahanJ.SignorielliN. (Eds.), Living with television now: Advances in cultivation theory & research (pp. 347-365). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
SteinkeJ. (1999). Women scientist role models on screen: A case study of contact. Science Communication, 21, 111-136. doi:10.1177/1075547099021002002
64.
SteinkeJ. (2005). Cultural representations of gender and science: Portrayals of female scientists and engineers in popular films. Science Communication, 27, 27-63. doi:10.1177/1075547005278610
65.
SteinkeJ.LapinskiM. K.CrockerN.Zietsman-ThomasA.WilliamsY.EvergreenS. H.KuchibhotlaS. (2007). Assessing media influences on middle school-aged children’s perceptions of women in science using the Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST). Science Communication, 29, 35-64. doi:10.1177/1075547007306508
66.
TelotteJ. P. (2001). Science fiction film. New York, NY: Cambridge.
67.
VeltriG. A. (2013). Microblogging and nanotweets: Nanotechnology on Twitter. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 832-849. doi:10.1177/0963662512463510
68.
WeingartP.MuhlC.PansegrauP. (2003). Of power maniacs and unethical geniuses: Science and scientists in fiction film. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 279-287. doi:10.1177/0963662503123006
69.
WestcottJ. (2003). Reassessing women in mainstream science fiction film and television, from “When Worlds Collide” to “Alien” (Master’s thesis). Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
70.
YeoS. K.XenosM. A.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A. (2014). Disconnected discourses: How popular discourse about nanotechnology is missing the point. Materials Today, 17(2), 48-49. doi:10.1016/j.mattod.2014.01.002
