Search results

This paper examines reasons of pragmatic functions' misinterpretation of three types of Facebook hashtags: long, short and multiple mixed hashtags.

Focus group interviews of 15 English language learners, who are also active users of Facebook and hashtags, are conducted. Thematic analysis is performed through the software Nvivo for arriving at reliable findings.

The findings show that unknown vocabulary in contents and lowercasing in long and short hashtags are major factors that cause misinterpretation. Also, the symbol of underscore and appropriate usage of upper and lowercasing of alphabets should be adopted in hashtag writing for the improvement in communication and successful conveyance of the intended meaning.

This paper contributes to the online hashtag writing style by finding reasons for the misinterpretations of different types of hashtags. Hashtags have been developed for adequate communication (Livingstone, 2012), but in Pakistan, hashtags are practiced as a “fashionable” trend and thus result in misinterpretation and inadequate communication among readers even of the same background (Tariq and Sarfraz, 2018). Moreover, this study focuses on the trend of hashtagging that is common among university students and particularly second-language learners because they are active users of Facebook and adopt the latest trends quickly.

Purpose: The United States became a member of the United Nations’ (UN’s) core anti-racism treaty, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), but has not passed the UN’s core gender equality treaty, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). This chapter explores why the United States passed only one of the conventions. It reviews the power, misinterpretation, and compliance theories that explain why only one of the treaties was ratified. In addition, it offers a fourth explanation of the nation’s behavior – that of relative cost.

Findings: This chapter shows that CEDAW’s mandates, which are specific in nature, are costlier with respect to public services, educational resources, and programs to alleviate cultural prejudices, than are the more broadly framed ICERD mandates. This chapter finds this difference as a driving factor for the nation to enter into the race convention and not the women’s rights pact.

Methodologies: Methodologies used in this publication include feminist and legal analyses and the examination of US policies as well as statements made by political figures.

Originality: This chapter makes contributions to legal and feminist scholarship by providing insight into the nation’s adoption of ICERD, and its failure to ratify CEDAW despite its stance that it is a supporter of women’s rights. The implications of this study are that while the power, misinterpretation, and compliance theories are useful to understand the apparent discrepant response to the two treaties, relative cost as defined by the different ways in which the treaties are framed is also useful in explaining the United States’ failure to ratify the gender equality treaty. Though CEDAW is more specific in its identification of equality issues and is costlier than ICERD, the advancement of both gender and racial equality in the United States falls short of international standards.

With the popularity of the internet, access to health-related information has become more convenient. However, the easy acquisition of e-health information could lead to unfavorable consequences, such as health anxiety. The purpose of this paper is to explore a set of important influencing factors that lead to health anxiety.

Based on the stimulus–organism–response (S-O-R) framework, we propose a theoretical model of health anxiety, with metacognitive beliefs and catastrophic misinterpretation as the mediators between stimulus factors and health anxiety. Using 218 self-reported data points, the authors empirically examine the research model and hypotheses.

The study results show that anxiety sensitivity positively affects metacognitive beliefs. The severity of physical symptoms has a significant positive impact on catastrophic misinterpretation. Metacognitive beliefs and catastrophic misinterpretation have significant positive impacts on health anxiety.

Based on the S-O-R model, this paper develops a comprehensive model to explain health anxiety and verifies the model using firsthand data.

Misinterpretation of a negative test results in health screening may initiate less preventive effort and more future lifestyle-related disease. We predict that misinterpretation occurs more frequently among individuals with a low level of education compared with individuals with a high level of education.

The empirical analyses are based on unique data from a randomized controlled screening experiment in Norway, NORCCAP (NORwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention). The dataset consists of approximately 50,000 individuals, of whom 21,000 were invited to participate in a once only screening with sigmoidoscopy. For all individuals, we also have information on outpatient consultations and inpatient stays and education. The result of health behaviour is mainly measured by lifestyle-related diseases, such as COPD, hypertension and diabetes type 2, identified by ICD-10 codes.

The results according to intention-to-treat indicate that screening does not increase the occurrence of lifestyle related diseases among individuals with a high level of education, while there is an increase for individuals with low levels of education. These results are supported by the further analyses among individuals with a negative screening test.

In order to gain a rich understanding of the phenomenon of cyberbullying among college students, we conducted a series of focus groups on the campus of a large southwestern university. Employing a grounded theory approach to the data analysis, major themes emerged. The roles of sender, receiver, and audience member are very fluid in the cyber-environment. Misinterpretation and miscommunication can result in unintentional cyberbullying; audience comments can easily escalate a benign comment into a major incident. Focus group participants generally believed that the receiver's interpretation rather than the intent of the sender determines whether a communication constitutes cyberbullying. Because of the potential for misinterpretation of messages, anyone can be a (perhaps unintentional) cyberbully. Participants believed that the anonymity of the Internet encouraged cyberbullying, as did the desire for instant gratification and impulsivity. Students who are different in some way (race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, and appearance) are perceived as being more vulnerable to being victimized in cyberspace, and students with high profiles (e.g., athletes and student government officers) were also noted as likely targets. Despite being able to describe the dynamics of cyberbullying in detail and provide numerous examples of it happening in the campus community, members of the focus groups were reluctant to characterize cyberbullying as a problem at their university and uncertain whether the university should intervene. They did, however, offer many suggestions that will be useful to universities seeking to develop policies, educational programs, and intervention strategies for their campuses.

This study seeks to offer a contextual, multilevel perspective on the impact of patriarchal culture and Islamic faith on issues facing women holding leadership positions in a Middle Eastern context.

Data were collected through 25 in-depth qualitative interviews along with open-ended questions in a paper-based survey. In view of the authors' research objectives, the authors purposively recruited participants who were identified as Muslim scholars (academics) and clerics (practitioners).

While the study challenges the prevailing stereotype that Islam holds women leaders back by referring to Islamic teachings that support gender equality, it also highlights the adverse impact of gender discriminatory misinterpretations of Islam for women leaders. The study identifies three interconnected, multilevel factors that lead to misinterpretations of Islamic teachings, i.e. (1) cultural factors (macro level – i.e. patriarchal and tribal culture), (2) organizational factors (meso level – i.e. organizational policies) and (3) individual factors (micro level – i.e. interpretations and practices of religion).

This study contributes to the existing theory development of religion and women in leadership by presenting a novel model highlighting the interplay between religion, patriarchy and women in leadership.

The study recommends the application of a gender egalitarian system that enables full utilization of women's skills and capabilities by (1) reducing the discriminatory function of tribal culture and (2) identifying steps to reform inegalitarian gender practices in the Arab region.

The research is unique as it is the first time that a study has incorporated Muslim academic scholars' and clerics' views into gender and organization research. The study is thus contextually relevant and offers fresh multilevel insights on the interplay among religion, culture and gender.

This study aims to use a graphical approach to highlight the differences between outranking and preference relationships. The outranking principle is based on a structure of non-dominance, which differs from the usual structures of preferences.

To reach the objective, the paper makes a deep analysis of outranking and preference relationships and uses graphical representation to highlight the differences between these two concepts. Graphical interpretation is also used to support the results form ELECTRE I and to highlight misinterpretation of results, such as rank reversal in ELECTRE I.

The results show that the assumption of rank reversal while using ELECTRE I is a mistake.

It was not found in literature a previous work paper that demonstrates a result like this one.

The purpose of this paper is to critically review past recommendations to correct for cultural biases in empirical survey data sets, and propose a framework that enables the researcher to assess the robustness of empirical findings from culture‐specific response styles (CSRS).

The paper proposes to analyze a set of derived data sets, including the original data as well as data corrected for response styles using theoretically plausible correction methods for the empirical data at hand. The level of agreement of results across correction methods indicates the robustness of findings to possible contamination of data by cross‐cultural response styles.

The proposed method can be used to inform researchers and data analysts about the extent to which the validity of their conclusions is threatened by data contamination and provides guidance regarding the results that can safely be reported.

Response styles can distort survey findings. CSRS are particularly problematic for researchers using multicultural samples because the resulting data contamination can lead to inaccurate conclusions about the research question under study.

The proposed approach avoids the disadvantages of ignoring the problem and interpreting spurious results or choosing one single correction technique that potentially introduces new kinds of data contamination.

The existence of variable response styles represents a major threat to the correct interpretation of market research findings. In international marketing, this threat is further increased due to samples of respondents from different cultural backgrounds. The purpose of this paper is to extend the investigation of differences in cross‐cultural response styles by studying full response patterns instead of extreme values, quantify the extent of the potential mistake of not accounting for cross‐cultural differences in response behaviour and present a simple way of testing whether or not data sets from various cultural backgrounds can be used without correcting for cross‐cultural response styles.

Two independent data sets are used. Extreme response style (ERS) scores are compared by testing for equality of proportions. Respondents' answer patterns are partitioned using the k‐means algorithm, the resulting differences between cultures tested using a Fisher's exact test for count data. The extent of inter‐cultural difference in responses is assessed using ANOVA.

Asian and Australian respondents differ significantly in ERS and full response patterns. Differences in cross‐cultural response patterns account for up to 6 per cent of the variance in the data, thus representing a significant potential source for misinterpretation in cross‐cultural studies.

International market researchers using samples including respondents from more than one cultural background have to be aware of the potential source of misinterpretation caused by cross‐cultural differences in response patterns. A simple ANOVA‐based procedure allows researchers to determine whether data can be used in its uncorrected form.

The paper investigates cross‐cultural response styles for new groups of respondents (Australian vs Asian), extends the study from the investigation of extreme values to full response patterns and gives market researchers in the international marketing context an indication of how high the level of potential misinterpretation can be and presents a simple means of checking how necessary it is to account for cross‐cultural differences in response behaviour.

The received wisdom underlying many guides to ethical research is that information is private, and research is consequently seen as a trespass on the private sphere. Privacy demands control; control requires consent; consent protects privacy. This is not wrong in every case, but it is over-generalised. The distorted perspective leads to some striking misinterpretations of the rights of research participants, and the duties of researchers. Privacy is not the same thing as data protection; consent is not adequate as a defence of privacy; seeking consent is not always required or appropriate. Beyond that, the misinterpretation can lead to conduct which is unethical, limiting the scope of research activity, obstructing the flow of information in a free society, and failing to recognise what researchers’ real duties are.