4.5 Article

Social and vocational identity in workers' online posts: a large-scale Instagram content analysis of job-related hashtags

Journal

BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2023.2264928

Keywords

Content analysis; media psychology; social media; vocational identity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Our study analyzed the content of Instagram posts and found no significant differences in the types of jobs portrayed based on sex and ethnicity. However, we observed differences in the portrayal of work values based on users' sex, ethnicity, gender typicality, and job status.
Instagram may be a novel context in which vocational identity construction occurs by posting content about one's profession. Yet, the content of such posts is unclear. Therefore, we performed a content analysis of 1,260 Instagram public feed posts that included a hashtag referring to gender-stereotypical professions (i.e. stereotypically male/female, gender-neutral) at multiple status levels (low, medium, high). We examined the posters' sex and ethnicity in relation to the profession in which they portrayed themselves and whether individual differences (i.e. sex, ethnicity, gender typicality/status of the job) were reflected in references to work values (i.e. qualities a job can offer). No differences were observed in the types of jobs in which individuals portrayed themselves according to sex and ethnicity. Differences in work value portrayals were exhibited for users' sex, ethnicity, gender typicality, and status of the job. Differences according to sex, gender typicality, and status of the job emerged with respect to the extent to which individuals' posts referred to work values being (dis)satisfied. Our findings highlighted that work value posts of certain social groups (i.e. sex, ethnicity) reflect work value differences in the real-world.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available