Interacting with Masculinities: A Scoping Review
Katie Seaborn

Tokyo Institute of Technology
seaborn.k.aa@m.titech.ac.jp

ABSTRACT
Gender is a hot topic in the field of human-computer interaction(HCI). Work has run the gamut, from assessing how we embed gender in our computational creations to correcting systemic sexism,
online and off. While gender is often framed around women andfemininities, we must recognize the genderful nature of humanity, acknowledge the evasiveness of men and masculinities, andavoid burdening women and genderful folk as the central actors
and targets of change. Indeed, critical voices have called for a shift
in focus to masculinities, not only in terms of privilege, power, andpatriarchal harms, but also participation, plurality, and transformation. To this end, I present a 30-year history of masculinities
in HCI work through a scoping review of 126 papers published to
the ACM Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) conference
proceedings. I offer a primer and agenda grounded in the CHI and
extant literatures to direct future work.

CCS CONCEPTS• Human-centered computing → Human computer interaction(HCI); HCI theories, concepts and models; • Social and professional topics → User characteristics; Gender.

KEYWORDS
Masculinities, masculinity, gender, CHI, human-computer interaction, scoping review
ACM Reference Format:
Katie Seaborn. 2023. Interacting with Masculinities: A Scoping Review. In
Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’23), April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany. ACM, New
York, NY, USA, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3585770

1

INTRODUCTION

Gender is on the frontlines of work aiming to raise attention
to matters of inclusion, diversity, and social justice in humancomputer interaction (HCI) [23, 135, 145, 178, 180, 191]. Gender
is a multifaceted aspect of human identity and social organization[60, 69, 95, 96]. In line with emerging academic and cross-culturalconsensus [95, 96], I approach gender as a social construct that isconstituted, negotiated, and performed in a multitude of ways fora variety of functions within societies1 . Gender can be a mode of
1 Gender is often contrasted with sex, which refers to the biological properties ofpeople’s bodies, such as chromosomes, hormones, sex organs, and secondary sex

Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal orclassroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributedfor profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citationon the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored.
For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s).
CHI EA ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany© 2023 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-9422-2/23/04.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3585770

expression, an internal self-identity, an external social category,
and/or an abstract perception, even of objects [29, 69, 120, 222].
Gender is often framed as femininity and masculinity, but a wealthof work across time and cultures has challenged this “binary” model[60, 95, 96, 145, 178, 188, 198], including in HCI [178, 188, 191]. Indeed, HCI has a history of developing, studying, and critiquing
technologies for gender inclusion and anti-sexism [12, 15, 165].
Feminist and intersectional HCI [178] projects have appeared alongside social movements like #MeToo and organizational changes,
notably the Critical Computing, Sustainability, and Social Justicesubcommittee2 at CHI [38].
Technologies, especially computer-based ones, are implicatedas sites and mediums of gender. Work has explored stereotypes indesign decisions [43, 149, 155, 219], harassment in digital spaces [59,125, 168], expert biases in recruitment and methods [114, 121, 145,
180, 187], and more. This work centres diversity and representation;highlights toxic behaviours towards women and genderful folk; andforegrounds the malignment of femininities and genderfulness. It
has also unveiled the role of patriarchal systems [215] that centre,
value, and privilege masculinities, where men and others upholdand benefit from the power offered to men by these systems. Much
work has focused on limits and harms—but technology can also
be a means of raising awareness and exploring gender expressions
and experiences, as well.
Critical work has raised another challenge: framing [54, 107, 159,
209, 216]. When it comes to harms meted out through technology,
women and genderful folk are rightfully centred. However, this can
imply that sexism is under their purview alone. As Himmelsbach
et al. [89:11] warn, “if women are studied solely, this might convey
the impression [that gender] does not matter to men.” Men andmasculinities are concealed [107], with men escaping responsibilityor legitimately believing that they have no role to play [77, 209].
Others argue that women and genderful folk must change. A widely
criticized [63, 92] instantiation of this is former Meta COO Sheryl
Sandberg’s “lean in” feminism [174]. Some view the systems as too
difficult to change or find that men do not participate [35, 174],
perhaps viewing sexism as a personal problem [54, 209] or notknowing how to take action even when they want to [54, 159]. A
more subtle frame is what other masculinities can be embraced, if
not toxic ones—and how technology can help.
Work on masculinities in and outside of HCI may help reframe
the situation and chart a path forward. A plurality of masculinities
have been mapped out [107]. Masculinities intersect with othergender and sex identities [1, 40], as well as other factors, such as
race [26, 139, 189] and sexuality [106]. As a social construct [69],characteristics, e.g., facial hair, that are categorized as male, female, and/or a range ofintersexes [60, 95, 96]. As for gender, these categories are also social constructs. Also,
the properties attributed to certain categories can vary widely within and across thosecategories; for example, breast size.
2 Notably, the name of the subcommittee was updated in 2022 to explicitly include the“social justice” part.

CHI EA ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

masculinities are in flux, co-created, contested, and concretized—
wittingly or otherwise—across cultures and over time [107]. Importantly, masculinities are not set in stone, nor are they the purview
of men; we must all engage in interrogative, reflective, and practicalwork on masculinities, as a feature of research, at least. Indeed, deconstructing and diversifying the very notion of masculinities itself
will be instrumental for progress on gender equality for everyone[107, 159]. We may approach masculinities as a facet of the user
experience (UX), a demographic variable with a legacy of privilege
within technology spaces [116, 212], and/or as a designable object[19, 224], one that may be shaped by computer technologies, suchas social media [64, 73, 184]. Yet, how masculinities have been approached as a subject of study in HCI remains obscure. Moreover,most of us are not well-versed in theories of gender, as a matterof course in most forms of STEM education. This leaves us with a
gap in our understanding of what has been done, what can be done,
and what next steps should be taken, especially in HCI.
In this preliminary work, I sought to better understand whether
and how masculinities have been approached within HCI. I asked
a broad and exploratory question: How have masculinities been
approached in the field of HCI, if at all? To this end, I carried out
a scoping review [141, 156, 204] of the ACM Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI) conference proceedings. I chose CHI as
a comprehensive general venue featuring the highest quality ofwork in HCI. This work sets the stage for future primary researchand systematic review work on masculinities within the field of
HCI. As a retrospective, it can act as a stimulus for community
self-reflection. It also addressing the need for more work centredon masculinities, in the plural, and how men can act in service ofgender equality within HCI and the greater world.

2

METHODS

I conducted a scoping review [141, 156], a form of exploratory yetsystematic literature review that aims to broadly capture a researchsubject, topic, or field of study [141, 156]. Scoping reviews are
typically carried out before systematic reviews so as to identify theextent of the available primary research so far [141, 204], make a
judgment on the value of carrying out systematic work [156], which
has certain requirements and is much more resource-intensive[87, 151], and/or summarize the findings, trajectories, and gaps,
especially when the work is novel or complex [204]. The value liesin tracing out histories, clarifying concepts, identifying knowns
and unknowns (or even the unasked), and mapping out next steps[141, 156]. I used the PRISMA-ScR approach3 [204], a world-classstandard [151] that helps maintain rigour when carrying out review
work and provides a formal structure for reporting, ideal for ease ofreading and peer review, as well as later meta-review work. While I
undertook this project alone, I aimed to avoid bias in my procedureby employing the PRISMA-ScR. I registered this protocol before
data collection on December 31st , 2022 at OSF4 .

Katie Seaborn

2.1

Eligibility Criteria

All items, i.e., papers published to the CHI proceedings, that included masculinity as part of the work were accepted. If masculinity
was referenced but not integrated into the work, e.g., in related
work or future work, the item was excluded.

2.2

Information Sources and Search

The ACM Digital Library (ACM DL), the venue for the CHI proceedings, was searched on December 31st , 2022. The search query
was: AllFields:(masculinity) OR AllField:(masculinities). The results
were filtered to the CHI proceedings.

2.3

Data Items

Metadata were extracted alongside: topic of study; research questions (RQs); HCI context, e.g., virtual reality (VR), hackerspaces;
whether masculinities were central; whether gender was central;
definition(s) of masculinities; whether these were explicit andquotable, implicit, such through associations of descriptors andmasculinities, or unstated; whether masculinities were approached
as a plural construct; whether gender was approached as a social
construct; whether a binary approach to gender was taken; typesof masculinities; theories; and citation(s) for all of these.

2.4

Selection Process and Data Synthesis

I downloaded the results of the query search from the ACM DL into
Zotero and removed two invalid items (introductions to conference
proceedings). I then randomly ordered and screened the items basedon the eligibility criteria, removing five non-CHI papers. Next, I
conducted a full-text review. This was done in three stages in parallel with data analysis, for which I used a reflexive thematic analysis
approach [22]. This method is suitable for solo work; as Braunand Clark acknowledge, exploratory data analysis is subjective andrelies on rater expertise; in my case, I am an experienced mixed
methodologist in HCI who has published on gender. My process:First, I reviewed 20% of the items, and extracted data if eligible. At
this stage, I developed the first set of codes based on patterns andhighlights in the data. I then revisited the first 20% of items to refine
the codes. I then reviewed and coded the next 20%. At this stage, I
developed higher-level themes based on the expected contributions
for scoping reviews but contextualized for the topic and field of
HCI [141]: social, design, research, and critique. I then recoded allitems. I removed 13 items that only referenced work or pointed tofuture work. I also categorized types of masculinities and theories.
I used exploratory statistics where possible.

3

RESULTS

From an initial 146 records, 126 items between 1993-2022 were
included (Figure 1). The data is available on OSF5 . I now summarize
the results. Counts and percentages were calculated against the
total number of papers, unless specified.

3 Note that I deviated from the PRISMA-ScR to accommodate CHI reporting structuresand HCI approaches to reporting, e.g., no structured abstracts.

4 https://osf.io/3kv7s

5 https://osf.io/qgk8m

Interacting with Masculinities: A Scoping Review

CHI EA ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

Figure 1: PRISMA flow diagram6 [151, 204] of the procedure for identifying items to be included and excluded.

3.1

Masculinity-Centrism in Topics andContexts of Study

A variety of topics and 25 contexts were found. The most common
contexts were general UI research, e.g., web and physical computing(17, 13%); HCI as a field, e.g., critiques of HCI practice, experiences ofworking in HCI, and bias in design, research, and practice (16, 13%);social media, e.g., Twitter and Reddit (14, 11%); and communities,e.g., online peer support, hackerspaces, and specific groups (13,10%). Others included games, field work, crowdsourcing, VR, CUIs
and voice UX, HRI and HAI, and design practice. Topics were sovaried that was is difficult to summarize; I recommend reviewing
the list in the OSF data set. I will draw out details and key into thisdiversity in the following sections.
Despite the target of this work and search terms used, only 14(11%) papers had masculinities as a main topic. Additionally, about
half or 65 (52%) papers were focused on gender. Examples of topics
include: gender norms and attitudes in father blogs [124]; African
American men and computing identity [98]; heteronormativity
and hegemonic masculinity in VR porn [227]; sexist beliefs via
sexualization/objectification of avatars within gaming contexts [21];and urinal games [133]. Topics cover a variety of masculinities,
intersectionality, identity and body, and sexism.
Most other papers had masculinities as subfactors or emergent
factors. Martens [131] used a scale to evaluate a novel statistics
interface that included the subfactors “feminine,” “masculine,” and“unisex.” Williams and Gilbert [223:3] contextualized their case studies against the scholarship of feminist and critical disability studies to point out the role that certain masculinities within certain
cultural contexts play in power imbalances within peer review processes: “This self-invisibility is the specifically modern, European,masculine, scientific form of the virtue of modesty . . . modern fantasies of objectivity have historically rendered the white male as
the invisible default witness to scientific fact."
Masculinities were also approached at a meta level, in relation totheir design and/or research praxis. Schechter, Egelman, and Reeder[176] explained that they used masculine and feminine pronouns
in the accounts of their social-authentication system “for clarity,” achoice that assumes a reader would be confused by the use of thesame pronouns for different characters, as well as one that belies
gender binary thinking. Tachtler et al. [196] provided a nuanced
discussion about recruitment, noting that they had aimed but wereunable to recruit a diverse sample, and considering valid reasons
why, i.e., most unaccompanied migrant youth in and around theirsite were young men. Kao et al. [103] argued that their selectionof stereotypical “male” and “female” voiced avatars was meant toachieve ecological validity against the most common setups in real
games, noting that “a binary view of gender is problematic” [103:7].

3.2

Definitions of Masculinities

Only four papers (3%) explicitly operationalized masculinity or
masculinities. These were sourced from critical studies, dictionaries,
cultural studies, or were unsourced. I outline them below:• Rubin, Blackwell, and Conley in 2020 [168:2], citing Coston
and Kimmel [41]: “the behaviors and expectations culturally
associated with boys and men.”• Pater et al. in 2019 [153:2-3] combine “masculinity” and“male,” and “male” and “man,” operationalizing these as identity expression through social media, notably by way of “external appearance.” They use the Oxford English Dictionary
to define “male,” but refer to the dictionary term of “man”:“having qualities or appearance traditionally associated withmen, especially strength and aggressiveness ... gender as"spectrum” [233].
• Danielescu and Christian in 2018 [44:6], citing Hofstede’s“cultural dimensions,” or construction of gender as a culturewide, general attribute [90]: “Masculinity, contrasted withfemininity, is sometimes expressed as ‘tough vs. tender’ - it
quantifies how competitive a society is, and social rewards
for achievement vs. cooperation.”• Dosono and Semaan in 2018 [51:5] created a thematic codefor “masculinity” in the context of American Asians andPacific Islanders (AAPIs) on Reddit, defining it as: “Critiquesof qualities traditionally associated with men.”
In 14 cases (11%), definitional qualities were implied by association. A word frequency analysis of 468 terms from the sentences inwhich “masculinity/ies” was found highlights several commonalities: gender (11), feminine, (7), associated, home, male, men, physical,
qualities, traditionally, work (4 each), binary, body, competitive, data,
design, female, gaming, individuals, psych, strength, traits, violence (3each), activities, agentic, aggressive, alternative, assertive, categories,
characterize, clothing, consistent, different, domestic, dominant, emotions, express, form, guru, identifying, identity, implicit, labor, man,men’s, minorities, models, people, power, pressure, sir, sport, technical,
technology, traditional, trans, transmasculine, transmen, type, user,
women working (2 each). This indicates that masculinities werepositioned against femininities and women. Qualities align with
common views, such as strength, violence, dominance, tradition . . .

CHI EA ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

and technology. Still, a portion point to alternative models, intersectional factors, and trans identities.
81 papers (64%) did not define or operationalize masculinity directly or indirectly. A word frequency analysis of 825 terms fromthe sentences in which “masculinity/ies” was found reveals: gender(26), feminine (19), men (18), women (14), male (11), fem, participants, technology (8 each), binary, female, two (7 each), choices,
Hofstede (6 each), abuse, norms, people, sex, white (5 each), avatar,boys, communities, control, create, cultural, experiences, gendered,modern, perceived, play/games, traditional (4 each), culture, dimensions, dominant, environment, hegemonic, identity, majority, males,
neutral, options, others, participant, pronouns, role, social, trans, work,
young (3 each). While this largely matches the above, the work of
Hofstede and cultural-level operationalizations of masculinity/ies
are highlighted. Moreover, there is mention of male-as-neutral andspecific reference to games/play. Finally, the intersectional factors
and trans identities are less present, which we might expect sincethese tend to be marginalized and thus at risk of being overlooked.
Nearly half or 60 papers (48%) took a pluralistic approach tomasculinities. Still, 8 papers (6%) took a singular approach, and formore than half (58, 46%) it was unclear. For example, Madden et al.
[126:1] cited literature on how gamers and gaming cultures havebeen characterized, without making it clear how they felt about it:“male and female gamers play competitive games in roughly equal
numbers . . . esports . . . are still viewed as ‘male-dominated’ . . . themasculine and feminine cultures in gaming are still surroundedby commonplace assumptions, such as males being ‘aggressive’and ‘undesirable’ individuals.” Merely citing literature does notnecessarily imply the authors’ own stances. Most papers (92, 73%)
approached masculinities as a constructed object, although it was
hard to judge in 32 (25%) of cases. For example, Gonzales and Fritz[76] talked to folks engaging in crowdsourcing to fund top survey
or “reconstruction of a masculine chest” [76:2371], recruiting “onlytransmen or those who identified as transmasculine” [76:2372].
This points to plurality as well as the intersections of identity,
positionality, and personal choice. Still, nearly half (58, 46%) relied
on a gender binary perspective, with 54 (43%) going beyond thebinary and 14 (11%) unclear. Given the clear distribution here, I
ran a Kendall tau-b test, finding a significant negative relationshipbetween year of publication and binary positioning, 𝜏b = -.224, p =.006. This indicates that the use of a binary framing has declined
over the years, though it is still present.
In short, men and masculinities were largely taken for granted.
When defined, “masculinity” was characterized in a range of ways:
cultural norms and behaviours, identity and appearance, an attribute of cultures as a whole, a critique of traditional qualities
associated with men and boys. While many have taken a binary
framing, there appears to be a trend away from this and especiallytowards constructivist and pluralistic characterizations—even if theauthors do not address this directly, such as with definitions orreferences to theoretical frameworks.

Katie Seaborn

nor does each category comprise an exhaustive list of types. This
represents the current state of affairs.
3.3.1 General Types of Masculinities. Types of masculinities named
across the corpus of papers, in order from most common to least:• Hypermasculinity, described as “culture of college fraternities” ... “barbarian, manly hero” ... “dominance, violence, andlack of emotional expression” [21, 25, 58, 82, 99, 126], withreferences to Witkowski [225] and Zolides et al. [232].
• Hegemonic masculinity, or the dominant, singular model ofmasculinity in a given society, which was not referenced,
but used in several papers [2, 99, 118, 190, 227].
• Toxic masculinity, also not defined or sourced but used inseveral papers [25, 112, 142, 146, 168].
• Normative masculinity, referring to adherence to a given society’s expectations for men and masculinities, described as"being assertive, demonstrating bravery through risk-taking,upholding heterosexuality and rejecting femininity, and establishing dominance through aggression" ... "appreciating
and practicising sports” [168, 211], with references to Mahalik et al. [127] and Pascoe and Bridges [152].
• Alternative masculinities, a pluralistic concept where "menare able to express their emotions, reject violence, and champion fighting all forms of oppression of women and othermen" ... a "’softer’ form of masculinity" [168, 211], referencing Pascoe and Bridges [152].
• Rugged masculinity, described as “taming ‘virgin’ nature,
the problems of habitation by indigenous peoples, and theissues of the supernatural associated with the encounter withwilderness” ... “‘rugged individualism’ culture in computing”[146, 185], referencing Dourish [53], Ensmenger [57], Fox
and Tang [65], and Salter and Blodgett [172].
Others include fragile masculinity [168], masculinity anxieties[168], male-default values [125] traditional masculinity [66], bapak (the Javanese version of hegemonic masculinity) [118], andsupportive masculinity [173].
3.3.2 Technology-Oriented Masculinities. The two most common
forms of technology-oriented masculinities were:• Geek masculinity, a general term variably described as a"masculine understanding of identity that is visible acrosstechnology culture" ... "in which technological mastery forms
the basis of masculine esteem and social status" [25, 67, 136],
with references to Kendall [105], Bucholtz [27], Eglash [55],and Lin and den Besten [119].
• Toxic gamer culture, focused on video game sites and which"frames gaming as a male-gendered, potentially violent
space" [82, 126], via Consalvo [39].
Others included brogrammers [25], alpha and beta masculinities[25], masculine technophile [190], technology czars and gurus [190],
and masculine prototypicality in technology [162].

3.4
3.3

Types of Masculinities

I now review the types of masculinities invoked and defined in theliterature. This is not an inclusive classification of masculinities,

Theories and Frameworks of Masculinities

Most (28, 92%) theories and frameworks referenced by authors
in this corpus of work were general or non-disciplinary: identity intersectionality [71, 91], construction [75, 122], and multiplicity [28]; masculine norms [84, 163], traits [17, 179, 186], roles

Interacting with Masculinities: A Scoping Review

CHI EA ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

Table 1: Thematic framework of approaches to masculinities at CHI
Theme

Code

PapersCount(%)

SocialBehaviour[2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 20, 25, 36, 45, 47, 51, 52, 58, 62, 66, 68, 76, 80, 83, 94, 97, 103, 109, 114, 117,
123, 125, 126, 128, 133, 134, 136, 138, 140, 142, 146, 147, 149, 153, 154, 158, 162, 164, 167, 168, 170,
177, 180, 181, 183, 190, 192–195, 199, 200, 202, 208, 211, 217, 218, 221, 223, 227, 228, 230, 231]
[2–6, 11, 14, 16, 20, 21, 25, 30, 34, 36, 42–45, 47, 50–52, 58, 62, 66–
68, 76, 78, 80, 83, 88, 97, 98, 103, 104, 108–110, 112, 123–126, 128, 130–132, 134, 136, 138, 140, 142, 143, 146–149, 153, 154, 158, 167, 170, 173, 175, 177, 183, 190, 192, 195–
197, 199, 200, 202, 205, 211, 218, 221, 227, 228, 230]
[2–6, 11, 16, 21, 25, 31, 33, 36, 51, 52, 58, 66–68, 70, 76, 79, 83, 94, 98, 99, 103, 110, 117, 125, 126,
128, 134, 138, 140, 142, 146, 147, 153, 154, 158, 177, 188, 190, 192, 195, 197, 199, 200]
[11, 21, 44, 50, 68, 70, 72, 88, 102, 103, 109, 111, 117, 123, 129, 150, 180, 182, 194, 205, 221, 230]
[3, 14, 30, 61, 66, 72, 78, 104, 108, 110, 131, 132, 134, 137, 138, 143, 147, 150, 167, 171, 202, 211,
217, 229][2–4, 11, 14, 16, 20, 21, 25, 31, 33, 34, 36, 45, 47, 51, 52, 58, 62, 66, 76, 80, 83, 94, 97, 103, 109,
110, 113, 114, 123, 125, 126, 130, 132–134, 136, 138, 140, 142, 143, 146, 147, 158, 162, 167, 170,
173, 183, 190, 193, 197, 199, 200, 202, 208, 218, 227, 228, 230, 231][2, 4–6, 11, 14, 16, 20, 25, 31, 34, 36, 42, 45, 45, 47, 51, 52, 66, 67, 72, 76, 80, 83, 94, 97, 98, 113, 124–
126, 130, 133, 134, 136–138, 140, 142, 143, 146, 153, 154, 158, 162, 164, 167, 170, 173, 183, 185,
190, 192, 194, 196, 199, 200, 208, 218, 227, 230, 231]
[12, 31, 43, 50, 66, 67, 88, 129, 148, 149, 164, 167, 180, 211]
[99, 115, 176, 180, 188, 203, 208]
[4, 23, 30, 42, 72, 88, 89, 99, 128, 148, 154, 167, 175, 177, 180, 181, 188, 195, 223]
[23, 89, 99, 109, 126, 154, 180, 188, 223]
[3, 14, 23, 30, 31, 33, 36, 68, 79, 81, 82, 103, 112, 118, 125, 134, 136, 138, 149, 162, 167, 170, 180,
192, 193, 196]
[2, 10, 12, 23, 42, 47, 51, 83, 89, 99, 118, 129, 130, 136, 146, 164, 167, 170, 173, 177, 185, 188, 190,
192, 195, 200, 202, 223]

69 (55%)

Attitudes

Identity
DesignAgent Attribute
Interface Pattern
ExperienceSpace

Research
Critique

MethodReporting
MethodReportingTechnology
Field[127], and cultures [166]; social construction [60, 69]; performativity [37, 213, 214]; gender schema theory [18]; gender rules[210] and ideology [46]; Hofstede’s masculinity index for cultures[90]; othering [144]; heteronormativity, heteropatriarchy [91], andvalue neutrality [9]; gender role strain paradigm [160, 161]; father
involvement [85]; muscle dysmorphia [157] and bigorexia [74];male-dominated [65, 93, 226] and masculinized spaces [100]; autonomy from masculinity [170]; androcentrism and male-as-default[48]; alpha male effect [86]; and masculine disclosure [172]. Others (6, 18%) were tech-oriented: gender-agnostic platforms [125];
cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers [32] and men’s/boy’s clubs[99, 169, 201]; online disinhibition effect [207]; the manosphere[73]; co-production of gender and tech; and data feminism [49](data as masculine, i.e., rational and objective).

3.5

Summarizing Approaches to Masculinities
at CHI: Social, Design, Research, Critique

I summarize the state of affairs across this 30-year corpus of CHI
papers with the themes and codes in Table 1.

4

DISCUSSION

Global shifts in how “masculinity” is viewed, personally and politically, are taking place alongside worldwide calls for action ongender bias and sexism in the technosphere. How has CHI risen

83 (66%)50 (40%)22 (17%)24 (19%)62 (49%)62 (49%)14 (11%)
7 (6%)
19 (15%)9 (7%)
26 (21%)28 (22%)to the challenge? While small, the pool of work focusing on or
including a component of masculinities represents a diverse arrayof work. Still, there are gaps and potentials not yet traversed that
may be especially suitably for HCI work, if not CHI specifically.

4.1

Bringing in Masculinities from the Extant
Literature

We can use the extant literature in men and masculinities studies
and gender studies to seed new directions. Drawing on my expertise,
I provide this curated list of influential work as a starting point.
• Technomasculinity [101] refers to how men portray themselves as advanced computer users and rely on this portrayal
when relating to others. Here, computer use and especiallymastery is taken on as a social identity. In HCI work, technomasculinity may guide: the selection of participants based on
gender and/or technology-oriented identities, especially inmulti-user contexts; the design of questionnaires and otherprobes that involve self-reports of technical identity, ability,
and/or experience; and observational and analysis frameworks at sites and in data where technical mastery may
play a role. For example, gendered self-selection of peer programming teams in a classroom setting may be understood
through a technomasculinist framework. Technomasculinity

CHI EA ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

relates to geek masculinity, found in this survey across several papers. Technomasculinity is about technical masteryas a form of power, while geek masculinity is an alternative when mastery of dominant forms of masculinity areperceived to be unachieved or unachievable.
• Inclusive masculinity theory (IMT ) [7] was “developed to explain sport and fraternity settings where the social dynamics
were not predicated on homophobia, stoicism or a rejectionof the feminine” [8:549]. As this review has shown, technology spaces, activities, and roles across HCI contexts carrya range of masculine-centric or -dominant characteristics,
values, and demarcations. Even the digital instantiation ofsports, esports, has been explored [126]. If forms of masculinity trickle down from the larger culture, we may expect to find similarities when comparing to other masculinecentric or -dominant domains, like sports and fraternities.
IMT presents a more nuanced framing to further shape these
expectations and push us to consider alternatives. For example, we may be primed to look for certain forms of genderedinterlocutions between a self-identifying jock and a stereotypically deferential feminine-voiced virtual assistant. We
may miss or decentre engagements that do not fit expectations, such as the jock taking on emotional labour for afriend by searching about a seemingly non-gendered, benign
topic, like the closest store to get a prepaid phone card.
• Hybrid masculinities are defined as “men’s selective incorporation of performances and identity elements associatedwith marginalized and subordinated masculinities and femininities [24:246]. HCI now offers a wealth of ways in which
to express, play with, challenge, deconstruct, and reify gender through identity and performance beyond traditional
text modalities. We can choose and customize avatars; we
can modify our appearance in realtime on Zoom; we canchange our voice with vocalization software; we can evenproduce deepfakes of ourselves and others. A key elementof this is change: we are not stuck with a single mode ofexpression. Hybrid masculinities could illuminate and explain longitudinal engagements with technologies as modesof self-expression. Social media, video games, wearables at
cosplay events . . . there are many HCI-oriented sites wherehybrid masculinities could be found.
• Caring masculinities are defined by anti-domination, positive
emotion, interdependence, and a focus on relations [56]. It
may be employed as an alternative to the manosphere already explored at CHI [73]. Investigations could be as general
as how people who identify as men or masculine conduct
themselves in interpersonal exchanges online to specificallytracing out communities and movements centred on formsof caring masculinities, including and beyond anti-misogyny
initiatives. We can also revisit the gaming and VR spaces
found in the reviewed work to explore interactive narratives, characters, and mechanics that allow people to takeon caring masculinist personas and modes of engagement.
• Flexible, strategic [13], and chameleon [220] masculinities refer to “code-switching” in masculinity performance. Do those
who identify as men or masculine switch between modes ofKatie Seaborn

expression, even suddenly or in rapid succession, when interacting with certain others or moving between technology
spaces? Could such “code-switching” be embodied in virtual
characters, agents, and robots designed with masculine cues?
There is much to explore on either side of the HCI equation.
• Postcolonial masculinities are those that centre masculinities beyond Western and “First World” contexts [189]. In
this review, only one was found: the Javanese bapak [118].
Initiatives in the field of HCI and especially at CHI havehighlighted and pressed for recognition and engagement on
matters of diversity, equity, and inclusion beyond gender.
Could postcolonial masculinities complement the work thisreview has found on rugged masculinities [146, 185], forexample? This also means taking an intersectional lens togender and in this case masculinities. For instance, do “caring masculinities” look the same in a South Asian WhatsApp
group chat compared to a British one? We should be cautious
about making assumptions and leaning on generalizations
from WEIRD research at CHI [121] and adjacent spaces, suchas HRI [234]. Still, HCI is a radical, creative, and politicalspace, welcoming of inclusive knowledge and change inpraxis. Ideas run the gamut. For instance, we could create
Two-Spirit avatars and modes of engagement in interactive
stories and video games that link masculinities, femininities,
and gender identities and expression to sexuality and sociocultural roles and hierarchies that do not necessarily map
on Western LGBTQI+ models and distinctions [235].

4.2

An Agenda for Future Interactions with
Masculinities

I offer a non-exhaustive list of ideas and prompts based on thesurveyed work and summarizing thematic framework.
• Social: Hack Masculinities with New Forms of Education andEvents. Masculinities come to bear in social HCI contexts,
with most work covered in this review falling within attitudinal (66%), behavioural (55%), experiential (49%), and spatial (49%) themes. A complementary, triangulated approach
could be explored at these intersections in the forms of educational initiatives and social events. Plank [159] asks why
we have tech events for girls but we do not have nursing
events for boys. Could we design games that explore multiple forms of masculinities? What about VR applications thatallow men and boys to freely explore gender expression?
Could we design hackathons on technologies that confront
toxic masculinity . . . encourage caring masculinities . . . or
involve “feminine” activities, like digital sewing?
• Design: Create New Prototypes from the Lenses of Extant Theories. While the body of work covered in this review drewon several general (3.3.1) and HCI-oriented frameworks ofmasculinities (3.3.2), I point out several more candidates thathave not yet been explored (4.1). How can we use these theories in HCI? The paths forward are too numerous to name,but I can offer a few more ideas. How could HCI approach,for example, postcolonial masculinities, especially given thedecolonizing work [154, 206] already underway? Are thereInteracting with Masculinities: A Scoping Review

caring masculinities in the e-health space or in mental healthand wellbeing spaces on social media? Could there be?
• Research: Explore a Diversity of Theories. As the content analysis results (3.2) indicate, much of the work covered in thisreview appears to speak to theories, even if those theories
were not used. Can we revisit previous work—even just thedata for further analysis—in case instances of novel (for CHI)
forms of masculinities were missed? Can we offer our dataas part of a new open science initiative to uncover implicit
connections to existing theoretical frameworks? Doing sowould not only be useful for the field of HCI, but also feedback into larger knowledge and theoretical bases of genderand masculinities. This could show how CHI as a venue
contributes to general knowledge in a concrete way. This
would also reveal the how HCI is distinct, leading to offshoottheories and potentially new ideas for design and research.
• Critique: Let’s Be Reflexive and Change Our Ways. We lean
on masculinities, whether we are conscious of it or not. Still,
only 3% of the corpus operationalized “masculinities,” with
64% leaving the concept undefined and nearly half (48%)
taking an unclear stance, even for recruiting and/or demographics reporting. Still, the other half (48%) has taken on apluralistic approach, even without providing a clear definition or using a theoretical framework. We may be at a key
juncture for reflexivity [164] as a field of study and practice.
CHI can lead the way. Change can be small, such as rethinking how we ask about gender for demographics [187]. How
do we wish to interact with masculinities?

4.3

Limitations

This work was limited by the focus on the CHI conference; future
work should scope out the literature in other HCI venues, including
conferences, journals, and other venues. I alone carried out thiswork; while aimed for self-correction by remaining reflexive andemploying the PRISMA-ScR, I acknowledge that the codings andclassifications could be limited by this solo approach. Future work
can test and expand these frameworks with multiple raters.

5

CONCLUSION

In this scoping review, I have traced out a history of masculinities
at the premier international CHI conference. I have extended thebase offered by this body of work by weaving in extant theories
and highlighting trajectories for future work. HCI spaces like CHI
have much to offer, in the past, present, and future, by approachingmasculinities as a matter of inclusion, diversity, and social justicefor everyone.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was funded by a Tokyo Tech Young Investigator Engineering Award.

REFERENCES[1] Miriam J. Abelson and Tristen Kade. 2019. Trans masculinities. In Routledge
International Handbook of Masculinity Studies. Routledge, 165-173. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9781315165165-16[2] Michael Ahmadi, Rebecca Eilert, Anne Weibert, Volker Wulf, and Nicola Marsden. 2020. Feminist Living Labs as Research Infrastructures for HCI: The Caseof a Video Game Company. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376716

CHI EA ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany[3] Alex A. Ahmed. 2019. Bridging Social Critique and Design: Building a Health
Informatics Tool for Transgender Voice. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3290607.3299077[4] Taghreed Alshehri, Norah Abokhodair, Reuben Kirkham, and Patrick Olivier.
2021. Qualitative Secondary Analysis as an Alternative Approach for CrossCultural Design: A Case Study with Saudi Transnationals. In Proceedings of the2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.
1145/3411764.3445108[5] Tawfiq Ammari, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Daniel M. Romero. 2018. Pseudonymous Parents: Comparing Parenting Roles and Identities on the Mommit andDaddit Subreddits. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174063[6] Nazanin Andalibi, Oliver L. Haimson, Munmun De Choudhury, and Andrea
Forte. 2016. Understanding Social Media Disclosures of Sexual Abuse Throughthe Lenses of Support Seeking and Anonymity. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 3906-3918. https://doi.org/
10.1145/2858036.2858096[7] Eric Anderson. 2009. Inclusive Masculinity: The Changing Nature of Masculinities.
Routledge, New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203871485[8] Eric Anderson and Mark McCormack. 2018. Inclusive Masculinity Theory:
overview, reflection and refinement. Journal of Gender Studies 27, 5, 547-561.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2016.1245605[9] Lindsey Andrews. 2015. Breathing Race into the Machine: The Surprising Career of the Spirometer from Plantation to Genetics by Lundy Braun (review).
Configurations 23, 1, 127-130. https://doi.org/10.1353/con.2015.0000[10] Matthew P. Aylett and Shaun Lawson. 2016. The Smartphone: A Lacanian Stain,
A Tech Killer, and an Embodiment of Radical Individualism. In Proceedings ofthe 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, 501-511. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892581[11] Jeffrey Bardzell, Shaowen Bardzell, Guo Zhang, and Tyler Pace. 2014. The Lonely
Raccoon at the Ball: Designing for Intimacy, Sociability, and Selfhood. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
3943-3952. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557127[12] Shaowen Bardzell. 2010. Feminist HCI: Taking stock and outlining an agenda fordesign. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (CHI ’10), 1301-1310. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753521[13] Adina Batnitzky, Linda McDowell, and Sarah Dyer. 2009. Flexible and Strategic
Masculinities: The Working Lives and Gendered Identities of Male Migrants
in London. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 35, 8, 1275-1293. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13691830903123088[14] Laura Beckwith, Cory Kissinger, Margaret Burnett, Susan Wiedenbeck, Joseph
Lawrance, Alan Blackwell, and Curtis Cook. 2006. Tinkering and Gender in
End-User Programmers’ Debugging. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, 231-240. https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.
1124808[15] Rosanna Bellini, Angelika Strohmayer, Ebtisam Alabdulqader, Alex A. Ahmed,
Katta Spiel, Shaowen Bardzell, and Madeline Balaam. 2018. Feminist HCI: Taking
stock, moving forward, and engaging community. In Extended Abstracts of the2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’18), 1-4.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3185370[16] Rosanna Bellini, Alexander Wilson, and Jan David Smeddinck. 2021. Fragmentsof the Past: Curating Peer Support with Perpetrators of Domestic Violence. In
Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445611[17] Sandra L. Bem. 1974. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journalof Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42, 2, 155-162. https://doi.org/10.1037/
h0036215[18] Sandra Lipsitz Bem. 1981. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex
typing. Psychological Review 88, 354-364. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.
4.354[19] Anne-Jorunn Berg and Merete Lie. 1995. Feminism and constructivism: Do
artifacts have gender? Science, Technology, & Human Values 20, 3, 332-351. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399502000304[20] Mark Blythe, Andrew Monk, and Jisoo Park. 2002. Technology Biographies:
Field Study Techinques for Home Use Product Development. In CHI ’02 Extended
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 658-659. https://doi.org/10.
1145/506443.506532[21] Jason T. Bowey, Ansgar E. Depping, and Regan L. Mandryk. 2017. Don’t Talk
Dirty to Me: How Sexist Beliefs Affect Experience in Sexist Games. In Proceedingsof the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1530-1543.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025563[22] Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2, 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/
1478088706qp063oa[23] Samantha Breslin and Bimlesh Wadhwa. 2015. Towards a Gender HCI Curriculum. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts

CHI EA ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germanyon Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1091-1096. https://doi.org/10.1145/
2702613.2732923[24] Tristan Bridges and C. J. Pascoe. 2014. Hybrid Masculinities: New Directionsin the Sociology of Men and Masculinities. Sociology Compass 8, 3, 246-258.
https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12134[25] Sian JM Brooke. 2022. Nice Guys, Virgins, and Incels: Gender in Remixing andSharing Memes at Hackathons. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517627[26] Mary Bucholtz. 1999. You da man: Narrating the racial other in the productionof white masculinity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3, 4, 443-460. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1467-9481.00090[27] Mary Bucholtz. 1999. “Why Be Normal?”: Language and Identity Practices in a
Community of Nerd Girls. Language in Society 28, 2, 203-223.
[28] Judith Butler. 1988. Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay inphenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre Journal 40, 4, 519-531.
[29] Judith Butler. 2004. Undoing Gender. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9780203499627[30] Marta E. Cecchinato, Anna L. Cox, and Jon Bird. 2017. Always On(Line)? User
Experience of Smartwatches and Their Role within Multi-Device Ecologies. In
Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
3557-3568. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025538[31] Le Chen, Ruijun Ma, Anikó Hannák, and Christo Wilson. 2018. Investigating
the Impact of Gender on Rank in Resume Search Engines. In Proceedings ofthe 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174225[32] Sapna Cheryan, Allison Master, and Andrew N. Meltzoff. 2015. Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: increasing girls’ interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes. Frontiers in Psychology 6. Retrieved January
16, 2023 from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00049[33] Toby Chong, Nolwenn Maudet, Katsuki Harima, and Takeo Igarashi. 2021. Exploring a Makeup Support System for Transgender Passing Based on Automatic
Gender Recognition. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445364[34] Shaan Chopra, Rachael Zehrung, Tamil Arasu Shanmugam, and Eun Kyoung
Choe. 2021. Living with Uncertainty and Stigma: Self-Experimentation andSupport-Seeking around Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. In Proceedings of the 2021
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3411764.3445706[35] Donna Chrobot-Mason, Jenny M. Hoobler, and Jasmine Burno. 2019. Lean In
Versus the Literature: An Evidence-Based Examination. Academy of Management
Perspectives 33, 1, 110-130. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2016.0156[36] Tya Chuanromanee and Ronald Metoyer. 2021. Transgender People’s Technology Needs to Support Health and Transition. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3411764.3445276[37] Cynthia Cockburn and Ruža First-Dilić. 1994. Bringing Technology Home: Genderand Technology in a Changing Europe. Open University Press Buckingham.
[38] Rob Comber, Shaowen Bardzell, Jeffrey Bardzell, Mike Hazas, and Michael
Muller. 2020. Announcing a new CHI subcommittee: Critical and sustainable
computing. interactions 27, 4, 101-103.
[39] Mia Consalvo. 2012. Confronting toxic gamer culture: A challenge for feminist
game studies scholars. https://doi.org/10.7264/N33X84KH[40] Anne Constantinople. 2005. “Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous
dictum?” Feminism & Psychology 15, 4, 385-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353505057611[41] Bethany M. Coston and Michael Kimmel. 2012. Seeing Privilege Where It Isn’t:
Marginalized Masculinities and the Intersectionality of Privilege. Journal ofSocial Issues 68, 1, 97-111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01738.x[42] Andrew Crabtree, Tom Rodden, Peter Tolmie, and Graham Button. 2009. Ethnography considered harmful. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’09), 879-888. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.
1518835[43] Jenna Cryan, Shiliang Tang, Xinyi Zhang, Miriam Metzger, Haitao Zheng, and
Ben Y. Zhao. 2020. Detecting gender stereotypes: Lexicon vs. Supervised learning methods. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI ’20), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376488[44] Andreea Danielescu and Gwen Christian. 2018. A Bot is Not a Polyglot: Designing Personalities for Multi-Lingual Conversational Agents. In Extended
Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
1-9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3174366[45] Maitraye Das, Brent Hecht, and Darren Gergle. 2019. The Gendered Geography of Contributions to OpenStreetMap: Complexities in Self-Focus Bias. In
Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
1-14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300793[46] Shannon N. Davis and Theodore N. Greenstein. 2009. Gender Ideology: Components, Predictors, and Consequences. Annual Review of Sociology 35, 87-105.
[47] Audrey Desjardins, Ron Wakkary, and William Odom. 2015. Investigating Genres and Perspectives in HCI Research on the Home. In Proceedings of the 33rd

Katie Seaborn

Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 3073-3082.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702540[48] Patricia G. Devine. 1989. Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56, 1, 5-18.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5[49] Catherine D’Ignazio and Lauren F. Klein. 2020. Data Feminism. MIT Press.
[50] Tilman Dingler, Benjamin Tag, David A. Eccles, Niels van Berkel, and Vassilis
Kostakos. 2022. Method for Appropriating the Brief Implicit Association Test
to Elicit Biases in Users. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517570[51] Bryan Dosono and Bryan Semaan. 2018. Identity Work as Deliberation: AAPI
Political Discourse in the 2016 US Presidential Election. In Proceedings of the2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-12. https://doi.
org/10.1145/3173574.3174207[52] Bryan Dosono, Bryan Semaan, and Jeff Hemsley. 2017. Exploring AAPI Identity
Online: Political Ideology as a Factor Affecting Identity Work on Reddit. In
Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, 2528-2535. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3053185[53] Paul Dourish. 2010. HCI and environmental sustainability: The politics of design
and the design of politics. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing
Interactive Systems (DIS ’10), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1145/1858171.1858173[54] Benjamin J. Drury and Cheryl R. Kaiser. 2014. Allies against Sexism: The Roleof Men in Confronting Sexism. Journal of Social Issues 70, 4, 637-652. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12083[55] Ron Eglash. 2002. Race, Sex, and Nerds: FROM BLACK GEEKS TO ASIANAMERICAN HIPSTERS. Social Text 20, 2 (71), 49-64. https://doi.org/10.1215/
01642472-20-2_71-49[56] Karla Elliott. 2016. Caring Masculinities: Theorizing an Emerging Concept. Men
and Masculinities 19, 3, 240-259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X15576203[57] Nathan Ensmenger. 2015. “Beards, Sandals, and Other Signs of Rugged Individualism”: Masculine Culture within the Computing Professions. Osiris 30, 1, 38-65.
https://doi.org/10.1086/682955[58] Hayley Evans, Udaya Lakshmi, Hue Watson, Azra Ismail, Andrew M. Sherrill,
Neha Kumar, and Rosa I. Arriaga. 2020. Understanding the Care Ecologies ofVeterans with PTSD. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376170[59] Tracie Farrell, Miriam Fernandez, Jakub Novotny, and Harith Alani. 2019. Exploring misogyny across the manosphere in Reddit. In Proceedings of the 10th
ACM Conference on Web Science (WebSci ’19), 87-96. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3292522.3326045[60] Anne Fausto-Sterling. 2000. Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Constructionof Sexuality. Basic Books, New York, NY.
[61] Andrew T. Fiore, Lindsay Shaw Taylor, G.A. Mendelsohn, and Marti Hearst.
2008. Assessing Attractiveness in Online Dating Profiles. In Proceedings of the
SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 797-806. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357181[62] Azadeh Forghani and Carman Neustaedter. 2014. The Routines and Needsof Grandparents and Parents for Grandparent-Grandchild Conversations overDistance. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, 4177-4186. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557255[63] Dawn Foster. 2016. Lean Out: Dawn Foster Asks: If One Percent Are Leaning in,What Are the Other 99% Supposed to Do? Duncan Baird Publishers.
[64] Jordan Foster and Jayne Baker. 2022. Muscles, makeup, and femboys: Analyzing
TikTok’s “radical” masculinities. Social Media + Society 8, 3, 20563051221126040.
https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221126040[65] Jesse Fox and Wai Yen Tang. 2014. Sexism in online video games: The role ofconformity to masculine norms and social dominance orientation. Computers in
Human Behavior 33, 314-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.014[66] Sarah E. Fox, Meredith Lampe, and Daniela K. Rosner. 2018. Parody in Place:
Exposing Socio-Spatial Exclusions in Data-Driven Maps with Design Parody. In
Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
1-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173896[67] Sarah Fox and Daniela K. Rosner. 2016. Continuing the Dialogue: Bringing
Research Accounts Back into the Field. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1426-1430. https://doi.org/10.1145/
2858036.2858054[68] Guo Freeman, Divine Maloney, Dane Acena, and Catherine Barwulor. 2022.
(Re)Discovering the Physical Body Online: Strategies and Challenges to Approach Non-Cisgender Identity in Social Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.
1145/3491102.3502082[69] Sophie Freud. 1994. The social construction of gender. Journal of Adult Development 1, 1, 37-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02252981[70] Daniel L. Gardner and Theresa Jean Tanenbaum. 2018. Dynamic Demographics:
Lessons from a Large-Scale Census of Performative Possibilities in Games. In
Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
1-12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173667

Interacting with Masculinities: A Scoping Review[71] Thomas J. Gerschick. 2011. Disability Identity Intersections with Masculinities.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203833056-12[72] Elisa Giaccardi and Elvin Karana. 2015. Foundations of Materials Experience:
An Approach for HCI. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2447-2456. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.
2702337[73] Debbie Ging. 2019. Alphas, betas, and incels: Theorizing the masculinities ofthe manosphere. Men and Masculinities 22, 4, 638-657. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1097184X17706401[74] C. Gluck. 2022. What is Muscle Dysmorphia, Bigorexia, Reverse Anorexia?
HealthyPlace. Retrieved January 16, 2023 from https://www.healthyplace.
com/ocd-related-disorders/body-dysmorphic-disorder/what-is-muscledysmorphia-bigorexia-reverse-anorexia[75] Erving Goffman. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. In Contemporary
Sociological Theory, Craig Calhoun, Joseph Gerteis, James Moody, Steven Pfaff
and Indermohan Virk (eds.). John Wiley & Sons.
[76] Amy Gonzales and Nicole Fritz. 2017. Prioritizing Flexibility and Intangibles:
Medical Crowdfunding for Stigmatized Individuals. In Proceedings of the 2017
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2371-2375. https://doi.
org/10.1145/3025453.3025647[77] Jessica J. Good, Julie A. Woodzicka, Kimberly A. Bourne, and Corinne A. MossRacusin. 2019. 3 - The decision to act: Factors that predict women’s and men’s
decisions to confront sexism. In Confronting Prejudice and Discrimination, Robyn
K. Mallett and Margo J. Monteith (eds.). Academic Press, 49-71. https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-12-814715-3.00003-5[78] Shathel Haddad, Joanna McGrenere, and Claudia Jacova. 2014. Interface Design for Older Adults with Varying Cultural Attitudes toward Uncertainty. In
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
1913-1922. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557124[79] Oliver L. Haimson, Anne E. Bowser, Edward F. Melcer, and Elizabeth F. Churchill.
2015. Online Inspiration and Exploration for Identity Reinvention. In Proceedingsof the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
3809-3818. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702270[80] Oliver L. Haimson, Dykee Gorrell, Denny L. Starks, and Zu Weinger. 2020.
Designing trans technology: Defining challenges and envisioning communitycentered solutions. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (CHI ’20), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376669[81] Foad Hamidi, Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, and Stacy M. Branham. 2018. Genderrecognition or gender reductionism? The social implications of embedded gender recognition systems. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.
3173582[82] Sabine Harrer, Simon Nielsen, and Patrick Jarnfelt. 2019. Of Mice and Pants:
Queering the Conventional Gamer Mouse for Cooperative Play. In Extended
Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
1-11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3310431[83] Christina N. Harrington, Shamika Klassen, and Yolanda A. Rankin. 2022. “AllThat You Touch, You Change”: Expanding the Canon of Speculative Design
Towards Black Futuring. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3502118[84] Deneen M. Hatmaker. 2013. Engineering Identity: Gender and Professional
Identity Negotiation among Women Engineers. Gender, Work & Organization
20, 4, 382-396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2012.00589.x[85] Alan J. Hawkins, Kay P. Bradford, Rob Palkovitz, Shawn L. Christiansen, Randal
D. Day, and Vaughn R. A. Call. 2002. The Inventory of Father Involvement: A
pilot study of a new measure of father involvement. The Journal of Men’s Studies
10, 183-196. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1002.183[86] Mar Hicks. 2013. De-Brogramming the History of Computing [Think Piece].
IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 35, 1, 88-88. https://doi.org/10.1109/
MAHC.2013.3[87] Julian Higgins, James Thomas, Jacqueline Chandler, Miranda Cumpston, Tianjing Li, Matthew Page, and Vivian Welch. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Retrieved October 1, 2021 from https://training.cochrane.
org/handbook/current[88] Charles G. Hill, Maren Haag, Alannah Oleson, Chris Mendez, Nicola Marsden, Anita Sarma, and Margaret Burnett. 2017. Gender-Inclusiveness Personas vs. Stereotyping: Can We Have It Both Ways? In Proceedings of the2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 6658-6671.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025609[89] Julia Himmelsbach, Stephanie Schwarz, Cornelia Gerdenitsch, Beatrix WaisZechmann, Jan Bobeth, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2019. Do We Care About Diversity in Human Computer Interaction: A Comprehensive Content Analysis on Diversity Dimensions in Research. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300720[90] Hofstede Insights. 2017. Country comparison. Hofstede Insights. Retrieved January 15, 2023 from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/[91] bell hooks. 2000. Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. Pluto Press.
[92] bell hooks. 2013. Dig Deep: Beyond Lean In. The Feminist Wire. Retrieved January
14, 2023 from https://thefeministwire.com/2013/10/17973/

CHI EA ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany[93] Evan Hoovler. 2010. The male gamer stereotype dissected. GameSpy. RetrievedApril 18, 2012 from http://www.gamespy.com/articles/113/1136797p1.html[94] Lara Houston, Steven J. Jackson, Daniela K. Rosner, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed,
Meg Young, and Laewoo Kang. 2016. Values in Repair. In Proceedings of the2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1403-1414. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858470[95] Lilian Hunt, Mathias Wullum Nielsen, and Londa Schiebinger. 2022. A framework for sex, gender, and diversity analysis in research. Science 377, 6614, 14921495. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abp9775[96] Janet Shibley Hyde, Rebecca S. Bigler, Daphna Joel, Charlotte Chucky Tate,and Sari M. van Anders. 2019. The future of sex and gender in psychology:
Five challenges to the gender binary. American Psychologist 74, 2, 171-193.
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000307[97] Margaret Jack, Jay Chen, and Steven J. Jackson. 2017. Infrastructure as Creative
Action: Online Buying, Selling, and Delivery in Phnom Penh. In Proceedings ofthe 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 6511-6522.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025889[98] Betsy James DiSalvo, Sarita Yardi, Mark Guzdial, Tom McKlin, Charles Meadows,
Kenneth Perry, and Amy Bruckman. 2011. African American Men Constructing
Computing Identity. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems, 2967-2970. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979381[99] Samantha Jaroszewski, Danielle Lottridge, Oliver L. Haimson, and Katie Quehl.
2018. “Genderfluid” or “attack helicopter”: Responsible HCI research practicewith non-binary gender variation in online communities. In Proceedings of the2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18), 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173881[100] Sheila Jeffreys. 2008. Keeping Women Down and Out: The Strip Club Boom andthe Reinforcement of Male Dominance. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture andSociety 34, 1, 151-173. https://doi.org/10.1086/588501[101] Robin Johnson. 2018. Technomasculinity and Its Influence in Video Game Production. In Masculinities in Play, Nicholas Taylor and Gerald Voorhees (eds.).
Springer International Publishing, Cham, 249-262. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-319-90581-5_14[102] Eun Hwa Jung, T. Franklin Waddell, and S. Shyam Sundar. 2016. Feminizing
robots: User responses to gender cues on robot body and screen. In Proceedingsof the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (CHI EA ’16), 3107-3113. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892428[103] Dominic Kao, Rabindra Ratan, Christos Mousas, Amogh Joshi, and Edward F.
Melcer. 2022. Audio Matters Too: How Audial Avatar Customization Enhances
Visual Avatar Customization. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501848[104] Evangelos Karapanos, Stephan Wensveen, Bart Friederichs, and Jean-Bernard
Martens. 2008. Do Knobs Have Character? Exploring Diversity in Users’ Inferences. In CHI ’08 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
2907-2912. https://doi.org/10.1145/1358628.1358782[105] Lori Kendall. 2000. “Oh No! I’m a Nerd!”: Hegemonic Masculinity on an Online
Forum. Gender and Society 14, 2, 256-274.
[106] Michael S. Kimmel. 1997. Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame and silencein the construction of gender identity. In Toward a New Psychology of Gender,
M. M. Gergen and S. N. Davis (eds.). Taylor & Frances/Routledge, Florence, KY,
US, 223-242.
[107] Michael S. Kimmel, Jeff Hearn, and Robert W. Connell. 2004. Handbook of Studies
on Men and Masculinities. SAGE Publications.
[108] Agnieszka Kitkowska, Johan Högberg, and Erik Wästlund. 2022. Online Terms
and Conditions: Improving User Engagement, Awareness, and Satisfaction
through UI Design. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517720[109] Sandeep Kaur Kuttal, Bali Ong, Kate Kwasny, and Peter Robe. 2021. Trade-Offs
for Substituting a Human with an Agent in a Pair Programming Context: The
Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445659[110] Xingyu Lan, Yanqiu Wu, Yang Shi, Qing Chen, and Nan Cao. 2022. Negative
Emotions, Positive Outcomes? Exploring the Communication of Negativity in
Serious Data Stories. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517530[111] Eun Ju Lee, Clifford Nass, and Scott Brave. 2000. Can computer-generated speech
have gender?: An experimental test of gender stereotype. In Proceedings of the
CHI’00 Extended Abstracts on Human factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’00),
289-290. https://doi.org/10.1145/633292.633461[112] Minha Lee, Renee Noortman, Cristina Zaga, Alain Starke, Gijs Huisman, andKristina Andersen. 2021. Conversational Futures: Emancipating Conversational
Interactions for Futures Worth Wanting. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.
3445244[113] Sky Leslie, Mirjam Vosmeer, Casper Sterrenburg, Anastasia Maimenscu, Damir
Catibovic, and Olico Matsjitadze. 2022. VR for Diversity: A Virtual Museum
Exhibition about LGBTIQ+. In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on

CHI EA ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519917[114] Weiwen Leung, Zheng Zhang, Daviti Jibuti, Jinhao Zhao, Maximilian Klein,
Casey Pierce, Lionel Robert, and Haiyi Zhu. 2020. Race, Gender and Beauty:
The Effect of Information Provision on Online Hiring Biases. In Proceedings ofthe 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376874[115] Yi-Chi Liao, Kashyap Todi, Aditya Acharya, Antti Keurulainen, Andrew Howes,
and Antti Oulasvirta. 2022. Rediscovering Affordance: A Reinforcement Learning Perspective. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501992[116] Merete Lie. 1995. Technology and masculinity: The case of the computer.
European Journal of Women’s Studies 2, 3, 379-394. https://doi.org/10.1177/
135050689500200306[117] Chong-U Lim and D. Fox Harrell. 2015. Toward Telemetry-Driven Analytics
for Understanding Players and Their Avatars in Videogames. In Proceedingsof the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, 1175-1180. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702613.2732783[118] Cindy Lin and Silvia Margot Lindtner. 2021. Techniques of Use: Confronting
Value Systems of Productivity, Progress, and Usefulness in Computing and
Design. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445237[119] Yu-Wei Lin and Matthijs den Besten. 2019. Gendered work culture in free/libre
open source software development. Gender, Work & Organization 26, 7, 10171031. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12255[120] Linda L. Lindsey. 2020. Gender: Sociological Perspectives. Routledge, New York.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315102023[121] Sebastian Linxen, Christian Sturm, Florian Brühlmann, Vincent Cassau, Klaus
Opwis, and Katharina Reinecke. 2021. How WEIRD is CHI? In Proceedings ofthe 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21), 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445488[122] John Lofland, David Snow, Leon Anderson, and Lyn H. Lofland. 2022. Analyzing
Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis, Fourth Edition.
Waveland Press.
[123] Sarah Lopez, Yi Yang, Kevin Beltran, Soo Jung Kim, Jennifer Cruz Hernandez,
Chelsy Simran, Bingkun Yang, and Beste F. Yuksel. 2019. Investigating Implicit
Gender Bias and Embodiment of White Males in Virtual Reality with Full Body
Visuomotor Synchrony. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300787[124] Kai Lukoff, Carol Moser, and Sarita Schoenebeck. 2017. Gender Norms andAttitudes about Childcare Activities Presented on Father Blogs. In Proceedingsof the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 4966-4971.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025767[125] Ning F. Ma, Veronica A. Rivera, Zheng Yao, and Dongwook Yoon. 2022. “BrushIt Off”: How Women Workers Manage and Cope with Bias and Harassment in
Gender-Agnostic Gig Platforms. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517524[126] Daniel Madden, Yuxuan Liu, Haowei Yu, Mustafa Feyyaz Sonbudak, Giovanni
M Troiano, and Casper Harteveld. 2021. “Why Are You Playing Games? You
Are a Girl!”: Exploring Gender Biases in Esports. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3411764.3445248[127] James R. Mahalik, Benjamin D. Locke, Larry H. Ludlow, Matthew A. Diemer,
Ryan P. J. Scott, Michael Gottfried, and Gary Freitas. 2003. Development of the
Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 4,
1, 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3[128] Nicola Marsden. 2014. Doing Gender in Input Fields. In CHI ’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1399-1404. https://doi.org/10.
1145/2559206.2581212[129] Nicola Marsden and Maren Haag. 2016. Stereotypes and Politics: Reflections
on Personas. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, 4017-4031. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858151[130] Nicola Marsden and Monika Pröbster. 2019. Personas and Identity: Looking at
Multiple Identities to Inform the Construction of Personas. In Proceedings ofthe 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300565[131] Jean-Bernard Martens. 2019. Interpreting the Diversity in Subjective Judgments.
In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300449[132] Mehreen Masood, Mujtaba Ahmed Khawaja, Muhammad Shehryaar Sharif,
Omer Iqbal, Momin Mehmood Butt, and Suleman Shahid. 2021. Meri Kahani: A
Gamified Solution to Teach Computational Thinking to Female Teenagers in
Low Resource Communities. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451776[133] Dan Maynes-Aminzade and Hayes Raffle. 2003. You’re in Control: A Urinary
User Interface. In CHI ’03 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, 986-987. https://doi.org/10.1145/765891.766108[134] Dana McKay and Charlynn Miller. 2021. Standing in the Way of Control: A Callto Action to Prevent Abuse through Better Design of Smart Technologies. In

Katie Seaborn

Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445114[135] Dana McKay, Huiwen Zhang, and George Buchanan. 2022. Who am I, and who
are you, and who are we? A Scientometric Analysis of Gender and Geography
in HCI. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3502106[136] Amanda Menking, Ingrid Erickson, and Wanda Pratt. 2019. People Who Can
Take It: How Women Wikipedians Negotiate and Navigate Safety. In Proceedingsof the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300702[137] Danaë Metaxa-Kakavouli, Kelly Wang, James A. Landay, and Jeff Hancock. 2018.
Gender-Inclusive Design: Sense of Belonging and Bias in Web Interfaces. In
Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
1-6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174188[138] Lydia Michie, Madeline Balaam, John McCarthy, Timur Osadchiy, and Kellie
Morrissey. 2018. From Her Story, to Our Story: Digital Storytelling as Public
Engagement around Abortion Rights Advocacy in Ireland. In Proceedings ofthe 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173931[139] Alfredo Mirandé. 2016. Hombres mujeres: An Indigenous third gender. Men and
Masculinities 19, 4, 384-409. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X15602746[140] Preeti Mudliar and Nimmi Rangaswamy. 2015. Offline Strangers, Online Friends:
Bridging Classroom Gender Segregation with WhatsApp. In Proceedings of the
33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 3799-3808.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702533[141] Zachary Munn, Micah D. J. Peters, Cindy Stern, Catalin Tufanaru, Alexa
McArthur, and Edoardo Aromataris. 2018. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology 18, 1, 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x[142] Tyler Musgrave, Alia Cummings, and Sarita Schoenebeck. 2022. Experiences ofHarm, Healing, and Joy among Black Women and Femmes on Social Media. In
Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517608[143] Elizabeth D. Mynatt, Jim Rowan, Sarah Craighill, and Annie Jacobs. 2001. Digital
Family Portraits: Supporting Peace of Mind for Extended Family Members. In
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
333-340. https://doi.org/10.1145/365024.365126[144] Jennifer C. Ng, Sharon S. Lee, and Yoon K. Pak. 2007. Chapter 4 Contesting
the Model Minority and Perpetual Foreigner Stereotypes: A Critical Review of
Literature on Asian Americans in Education. Review of Research in Education 31,
1, 95-130. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07300046095[145] Anna Offenwanger, Alan John Milligan, Minsuk Chang, Julia Bullard, and Dongwook Yoon. 2021. Diagnosing bias in the gender representation of HCI research participants: How it happens and where we are. In Proceedings of the2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21), 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445383[146] Johanna Okerlund, David Wilson, and Celine Latulipe. 2021. A Feminist Utopian
Perspective on the Practice and Promise of Making. In Proceedings of the 2021
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3411764.3445126[147] Lisa Orii, Nami Ogawa, Yuji Hatada, and Takuji Narumi. 2022. Designing for
Speech Practice Systems: How Do User-Controlled Voice Manipulation andModel Speakers Impact Self-Perceptions of Voice? In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3491102.3502093[148] Jahna Otterbacher. 2015. Crowdsourcing Stereotypes: Linguistic Bias in Metadata Generated via GWAP. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1955-1964. https://doi.org/10.1145/
2702123.2702151[149] Jahna Otterbacher, Jo Bates, and Paul Clough. 2017. Competent Men and Warm
Women: Gender Stereotypes and Backlash in Image Search Results. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
6620-6631. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025727[150] Tyler Pace. 2008. Can an Orc Catch a Cab in Stormwind? Cybertype Preferencein the World of Warcraft Character Creation Interface. In CHI ’08 Extended
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2493-2502. https://doi.org/10.
1145/1358628.1358706[151] Matthew J Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick M Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron,
Tammy C Hoffmann, Cynthia D Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M Tetzlaff,
Elie A Akl, Sue E Brennan, Roger Chou, Julie Glanville, Jeremy M Grimshaw,
Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Manoj M Lalu, Tianjing Li, Elizabeth W Loder, Evan
Mayo-Wilson, Steve McDonald, Luke A McGuinness, Lesley A Stewart, James
Thomas, Andrea C Tricco, Vivian A Welch, Penny Whiting, and David Moher. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting
systematic reviews. BMJ, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71[152] C. J. Pascoe and Tristan Bridges. 2016. Exploring Masculinities: Identity, Inequality,
Continuity and Change. Oxford University Press.

Interacting with Masculinities: A Scoping Review[153] Jessica A. Pater, Lauren E. Reining, Andrew D. Miller, Tammy Toscos, and Elizabeth D. Mynatt. 2019. “Notjustgirls”: Exploring Male-Related Eating Disordered
Content across Social Media Platforms. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.
3300881[154] Sachin R Pendse, Daniel Nkemelu, Nicola J Bidwell, Sushrut Jadhav, Soumitra
Pathare, Munmun De Choudhury, and Neha Kumar. 2022. From Treatment to
Healing:Envisioning a Decolonial Digital Mental Health. In Proceedings of the2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.
1145/3491102.3501982[155] Giulia Perugia, Stefano Guidi, Margherita Bicchi, and Oronzo Parlangeli. 2022.
The shape of our bias: Perceived age and gender in the humanoid robots of the
ABOT database. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE International Conferenceon Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’22), 110-119.
[156] Micah D. J. Peters, Christina M. Godfrey, Hanan Khalil, Patricia McInerney,
Deborah Parker, and Cassia Baldini Soares. 2015. Guidance for conducting
systematic scoping reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare
13, 3, 141-146. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050[157] Katharine A. Phillips. 2009. Understanding Body Dysmorphic Disorder. Oxford
University Press.
[158] Roosa Piitulainen, Perttu Hämäläinen, and Elisa D Mekler. 2022. Vibing Together:Dance Experiences in Social Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3491102.3501828[159] Liz Plank. 2019. For the Love of Men: From Toxic to a More Mindful Masculinity.
St. Martin’s Press.
[160] Joseph H. Pleck. 1981. The Myth of Masculinity. MIT Press.
[161] Joseph H. Pleck. 1995. The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In A new
psychology of men. Basic Books/Hachette Book Group, New York, NY, US, 11-32.
[162] Jie Qi, Leah Buechley, Andrew “bunnie” Huang, Patricia Ng, Sean Cross, andJoseph A. Paradiso. 2018. Chibitronics in the Wild: Engaging New Communities
in Creating Technology with Paper Electronics. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.
1145/3173574.3173826[163] Dennis E. Reidy, Joanne P. Smith-Darden, Kai S. Cortina, Roger M. Kernsmith,and Poco D. Kernsmith. 2015. Masculine Discrepancy Stress, Teen Dating Violence, and Sexual Violence Perpetration Among Adolescent Boys. Journal of
Adolescent Health 56, 6, 619-624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.02.009[164] Jennifer A. Rode. 2011. Reflexivity in digital anthropology. In Proceedings of the
SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11), 123-132.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978961[165] Jennifer A. Rode. 2011. A theoretical agenda for feminist HCI. Interacting with
Computers 23, 5, 393-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2011.04.005[166] Daniela K. Rosner. 2014. Making Citizens, Reassembling Devices: On Gender andthe Development of Contemporary Public Sites of Repair in Northern California.
Public Culture 26, 1 (72), 51-77. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-2346250[167] Daniela K. Rosner, Samantha Shorey, Brock R. Craft, and Helen Remick. 2018.
Making Core Memory: Design Inquiry into Gendered Legacies of Engineeringand Craftwork. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174105[168] Jennifer D. Rubin, Lindsay Blackwell, and Terri D. Conley. 2020. Fragile masculinity: Men, gender, and online harassment. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376645[169] Bonnie Ruder, Dwaine Plaza, Rebecca Warner, and Michelle Bothwell. 2018.
STEM Women Faculty Struggling for Recognition and Advancement in a “Men’s
Club” Culture. In Exploring the Toxicity of Lateral Violence and Microaggressions:Poison in the Water Cooler, Christine L. Cho, Julie K. Corkett and Astrid Steele(eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 121-149. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-74760-6_7[170] Cosima Rughiniş, Razvan Rughiniş, and Bogdana Humă. 2016. Impromptu
Crowd Science and the Mystery of the Bechdel-Wallace Test Movement. In
Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, 487-500. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892580[171] Patricia Russo and Stephen Boor. 1993. How Fluent is Your Interface? Designing
for International Users. In Proceedings of the INTERACT ’93 and CHI ’93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 342-347. https://doi.org/10.1145/
169059.169274[172] Anastasia Salter and Bridget Blodgett. 2012. Hypermasculinity & Dickwolves:
The Contentious Role of Women in the New Gaming Public. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56, 3, 401-416. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.
705199[173] Nithya Sambasivan, Amna Batool, Nova Ahmed, Tara Matthews, Kurt Thomas,
Laura Sanely Gaytán-Lugo, David Nemer, Elie Bursztein, Elizabeth Churchill,
and Sunny Consolvo. 2019. “They Don’t Leave Us Alone Anywhere We Go”:
Gender and Digital Abuse in South Asia. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.
3300232

CHI EA ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany[174] Sheryl Sandberg. 2015. Lean in - Women, Work and the Will to Lead. NHRD
Network Journal 8, 2, 137-139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0974173920150225[175] Yukiko Sawaya, Mahmood Sharif, Nicolas Christin, Ayumu Kubota, Akihiro
Nakarai, and Akira Yamada. 2017. Self-Confidence Trumps Knowledge: A CrossCultural Study of Security Behavior. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2202-2214. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3025453.3025926[176] Stuart Schechter, Serge Egelman, and Robert W. Reeder. 2009. It’s Not What You
Know, but Who You Know: A Social Approach to Last-Resort Authentication. In
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
1983-1992. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1519003[177] Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, Aaron Jiang, Katta Spiel, and Jed R. Brubaker. 2021.
Revisiting Gendered Web Forms: An Evaluation of Gender Inputs with (Non)Binary People. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445742[178] Ari Schlesinger, W. Keith Edwards, and Rebecca E. Grinter. 2017. Intersectional
HCI: Engaging identity through gender, race, and class. In Proceedings of the 2017
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17), 5412-5427.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025766[179] Stephen A. Schullo and Burton L. Alperson. 1984. Interpersonal phenomenology
as a function of sexual orientation, sex, sentiment, and trait categories in longterm dyadic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47, 5,
983-1002. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.5.983[180] Katie Seaborn and Alexa Frank. 2022. What pronouns for Pepper? A criticalreview of gender/ing in research. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3491102.3501996[181] Katie Seaborn, Peter Pennefather, and Haruki Kotani. 2022. Exploring genderexpansive categorization options for robots. In Extended Abstracts of the 2022
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’22), 1-6.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519646[182] Katie Seaborn and Jacqueline Urakami. 2021. Measuring voice UX quantitatively:
A rapid review. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’21), No. 416. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3411763.3451712[183] Orit Shaer, Lauren Westendorf, Nicholas A. Knouf, and Claudia Pederson. 2017.
Understanding Gaming Perceptions and Experiences in a Women’s College
Community. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, 1544-1557. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025623[184] Andra Siibak. 2010. Constructing masculinity on a social networking site: Thecase-study of visual self-presentations of young men on the profile images of
SNS Rate. YOUNG 18, 4, 403-425. https://doi.org/10.1177/110330881001800403[185] Marie Louise Juul Søndergaard, Gopinaath Kannabiran, Simran Chopra, Nadia
Campo Woytuk, Dilrukshi Gamage, Ebtisam Alabdulqader, Heather McKinnon,
Heike Winschiers-Theophilus, and Shaowen Bardzell. 2022. Feminist voices
about ecological issues in HCI. In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’22), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.
1145/3491101.3503717[186] Janet T. Spence, Robert Helmreich, and Joy Stapp. 1975. Ratings of self andpeers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptionsof masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32,
29-39. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076857[187] Katta Spiel, Oliver L. Haimson, and Danielle Lottridge. 2019. How to do betterwith gender on surveys: A guide for HCI researchers. Interactions 26, 4, 62-65.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3338283[188] Katta Spiel, Os Keyes, and Pınar Barlas. 2019. Patching gender: Non-binary
utopias in HCI. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’19), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.
3310425[189] Derek Stanovsky. 2007. Postcolonial masculinities. International encyclopedia ofmen and masculinities, 493-496.
[190] Yolande Strengers, Jenny Kennedy, Paula Arcari, Larissa Nicholls, and Melissa
Gregg. 2019. Protection, Productivity and Pleasure in the Smart Home: Emerging Expectations and Gendered Insights from Australian Early Adopters. In
Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
1-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300875[191] Simone Stumpf, Anicia Peters, Shaowen Bardzell, Margaret Burnett, Daniela
Busse, Jessica Cauchard, and Elizabeth Churchill. 2020. Gender-inclusive HCI
research and design: A conceptual review. Foundations and Trends®in Human–
Computer Interaction 13, 1, 1-69. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000056[192] Sharifa Sultana, François Guimbretière, Phoebe Sengers, and Nicola Dell. 2018.
Design Within a Patriarchal Society: Opportunities and Challenges in Designing
for Rural Women in Bangladesh. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.
3174110[193] Jiao Sun, Tongshuang Wu, Yue Jiang, Ronil Awalegaonkar, Xi Victoria Lin, andDiyi Yang. 2022. Pretty Princess vs. Successful Leader: Gender Roles in Greeting
Card Messages. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in

CHI EA ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3502114[194] JaYoung Sung, Rebecca E. Grinter, and Henrik I. Christensen. 2009. “Pimp My
Roomba”: Designing for Personalization. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 193-196. https://doi.org/10.1145/
1518701.1518732[195] Selina Jeanne Sutton, Paul Foulkes, David Kirk, and Shaun Lawson. 2019. Voiceas a Design Material: Sociophonetic Inspired Design Strategies in HumanComputer Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300833[196] Franziska Tachtler, Reem Talhouk, Toni Michel, Petr Slovak, and Geraldine
Fitzpatrick. 2021. Unaccompanied Migrant Youth and Mental Health Technologies: A Social-Ecological Approach to Understanding and Designing. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445470[197] Ana Tajadura-Jiménez, Joseph Newbold, Linge Zhang, Patricia Rick, and Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze. 2019. As Light as You Aspire to Be: Changing Body
Perception with Sound to Support Physical Activity. In Proceedings of the2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300888[198] Cara Tannenbaum, Robert P. Ellis, Friederike Eyssel, James Zou, and Londa
Schiebinger. 2019. Sex and gender analysis improves science and engineering.
Nature 575, 7781, 137-146. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1657-6[199] Nick Taylor, Ursula Hurley, and Philip Connolly. 2016. Making Community:
The Wider Role of Makerspaces in Public Life. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1415-1425. https://doi.org/
10.1145/2858036.2858073[200] Divy Thakkar, Nithya Sambasivan, Purva Kulkarni, Pratap Kalenahalli Sudarshan, and Kentaro Toyama. 2018. The Unexpected Entry and Exodus of Womenin Computing and HCI in India. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3173574.3173926[201] Helen Thornham. 2008. “It’s a boy thing”: Gaming, gender, and geeks. Feminist
Media Studies 8, 2, 127-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680770801980505[202] Alexandra To, Hillary Carey, Riya Shrivastava, Jessica Hammer, and Geoff
Kaufman. 2022. Interactive Fiction Provotypes for Coping with Interpersonal
Racism. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3502044[203] Kashyap Todi, Gilles Bailly, Luis Leiva, and Antti Oulasvirta. 2021. Adapting
User Interfaces with Model-Based Reinforcement Learning. In Proceedings ofthe 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.
org/10.1145/3411764.3445497[204] Andrea C. Tricco, Erin Lillie, Wasifa Zarin, Kelly K. O’Brien, Heather Colquhoun,
Danielle Levac, David Moher, Micah D.J. Peters, Tanya Horsley, Laura Weeks,
Susanne Hempel, Elie A. Akl, Christine Chang, Jessie McGowan, Lesley Stewart,
Lisa Hartling, Adrian Aldcroft, Michael G. Wilson, Chantelle Garritty, Simon
Lewin, Christina M. Godfrey, Marilyn T. Macdonald, Etienne V. Langlois, Karla
Soares-Weiser, Jo Moriarty, Tammy Clifford, Özge Tunçalp, and Sharon E. Straus.
2018. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist andexplanation. Annals of Internal Medicine 169, 7, 467-473. https://doi.org/10.7326/
M18-0850[205] Giovanni Maria Troiano, Matthew Wood, and Casper Harteveld. 2020. “AndThis, Kids, Is How I Met Your Mother”: Consumerist, Mundane, and Uncanny
Futures with Sex Robots. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376598[206] Elizabeth (Dori) Tunstall. 2013. Decolonizing design innovation: Design anthropology, critical anthropology, and indigenous knowledge. In Design Anthropology: Theory and Practice, Wendy Gunn, Ton Otto and Rachel Charlotte Smith(eds.). Bloomsbury, London, UK, 232-250.
[207] Reinis Udris. 2014. Cyberbullying among high school students in Japan: Development and validation of the Online Disinhibition Scale. Computers in Human
Behavior 41, 253-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.036[208] Aditya Vashistha, Abhinav Garg, Richard Anderson, and Agha Ali Raza. 2019.
Threats, Abuses, Flirting, and Blackmail: Gender Inequity in Social Media Voice
Forums. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300302[209] Theresa K. Vescio and Natasza Kosakowska-Berezecka. 2020. The Not
So Subtle and Status Quo Maintaining Nature of Everyday Sexism. In
The Cambridge Handbook of the International Psychology of Women,
Diane F. Halpern and Fanny M. Cheung (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 205-220. Retrieved January 14, 2023 from https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-the-internationalpsychology-of-women/not-so-subtle-and-status-quo-maintaining-nature-ofeveryday-sexism/9C9107C8E76A324C3CE27F2EF84F5BF9[210] Lisa Wade and Myra Marx Ferree. 2019. Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions.
W. W. Norton, Incorporated.
[211] Annika Waern, Elena Balan, and Kim Nevelsteen. 2012. Athletes and Street
Acrobats: Designing for Play as a Community Value in Parkour. In Proceedingsof the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 869-878.

Katie Seaborn

https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208528[212] Judy Wajcman. 1991. Technology as masculine culture. In Feminism confronts
technology. Penn State University Press, Pennsylvania.
[213] Judy Wajcman. 1991. Patriarchy, Technology, and Conceptions of Skill. Workand Occupations 18, 1, 29-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888491018001002[214] Judy Wajcman. 2010. Feminist theories of technology. Cambridge Journal of
Economics 34, 1, 143-152. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/ben057[215] Sylvia Walby. 1989. Theorising patriarchy. Sociology 23, 2, 213-234. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0038038589023002004[216] Andrea Waling. 2019. Rethinking Masculinity Studies: Feminism, Masculinity,
and Poststructural Accounts of Agency and Emotional Reflexivity. The Journalof Men’s Studies 27, 1, 89-107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1060826518782980[217] MinJuan Wang, Sus Lundgren Lyckvi, and Fang Chen. 2016. Why and How
Traffic Safety Cultures Matter When Designing Advisory Traffic Information
Systems. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2808-2818. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858467[218] Yi-Chia Wang, Moira Burke, and Robert E. Kraut. 2013. Gender, Topic, andAudience Response: An Analysis of User-Generated Content on Facebook. In
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
31-34. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470659[219] Zixuan Wang, Jiawen Huang, and Costa Fiammetta. 2021. Analysis of Gender Stereotypes for the Design of Service Robots: Case Study on the Chinese
Catering Market. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021, 1336-1344.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3461778.3462087[220] Michael Rhys Morgan Ward. 2015. The Chameleonisation of Masculinity:
Jimmy’s Multiple Performances of a Working-Class Self. Masculinities & Social
Change 4, 3, 215-240. https://doi.org/10.17583/mcs.2015.1657[221] Astrid Weiss, Anna Pillinger, Katta Spiel, and Sabine Zauchner-Studnicka. 2020.
Inconsequential Appearances: An Analysis of Anthropomorphic Language
in Voice Assistant Forums. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.
3382793[222] Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. Doing gender. Gender & Society 1,
2, 125-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002[223] Rua M. Williams and Juan E. Gilbert. 2019. Cyborg perspectives on computing
research reform. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3310421[224] Langdon Winner. 2007. Do artifacts have politics? In Computer Ethics. Routledge.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315259697[225] Emma Witkowski. 2012. Inside the huddle: The phenomenology and sociology of team play in networked computer games. IT University of Copenhagen,Copenhagen.
[226] Emma Witkowski. 2013. Eventful Masculinities: Negotiations of Hegemonic Sporting Masculinities at LANs. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203084496-20[227] Matthew Wood, Gavin Wood, and Madeline Balaam. 2017. “They’re Just Tixel
Pits, Man”: Disputing the ‘Reality’ of Virtual Reality Pornography through theStory Completion Method. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 5439-5451. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.
3025762[228] Xuexin Xu, Yin-Leng Theng, Jinhui Li, and Pham Tan Phat. 2016. Investigating
Effects of Exergames on Exercise Intentions among Young-Old and Old-Old. In
Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, 2961-2968. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892296[229] Judith Yaaqoubi and Katharina Reinecke. 2018. The Use and Usefulness ofCultural Dimensions in Product Development. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.
1145/3170427.3174368[230] Amal Yassien, ElHassan B. Makled, Passant Elagroudy, Nouran Sadek, andSlim Abdennadher. 2021. Give-Me-A-Hand: The Effect of Partner’s Gender on
Collaboration Quality in Virtual Reality. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3411763.3451601[231] Renwen Zhang, Natalya N. Bazarova, and Madhu Reddy. 2021. Distress Disclosure across Social Media Platforms during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Untangling the Effects of Platforms, Affordances, and Audiences. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445134[232] Andrew Zolides. Lipstick bullets: Labour and gender in professional gamer
self-branding. Persona Studies 1, 2, 42-53. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.
968534603571037[233] 2018. Man. The Oxford Dictionary.
[234] Katie Seaborn, Giulia Barbareschi, and Shruti Chandra. 2023. Not Only WEIRD
but “Uncanny”? A Systematic Review of Diversity in Human–Robot Interaction
Research. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12369-023-00968-4[235] Jenny L. Davis. 2019. Refusing (mis)recognition: Navigating multiple marginalization in the U.S. Two Spirit movement. Review of International American Studies
12, 1, 65-86. https://doi.org/10.31261/rias.7328