Skip to Content
0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

Last modified by Ryan C on 2025/06/26 03:09
From version 105.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/04/16 02:46
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 109.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 02:53
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Parent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -Main.Studies.WebHome
1 +Main Categories.Science & Research.WebHome
Content
... ... @@ -1,4 +2,3 @@
1 -
2 2  {{toc/}}
3 3  
4 4  
... ... @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
6 6  
7 7  
8 8  
9 - Welcome to the **Research at a Glance** repository. This section serves as a **centralized reference hub** for key academic studies related to various important Racial themes. Each study is categorized for easy navigation and presented in a **collapsible format** to maintain a clean layout. I wanted to make this for a couple of reasons. Number one is organization. There are a ton of useful studies out there that expose the truth, sometimes inadvertently. You'll notice that in this initial draft the summaries are often woke and reflect the bias of the AI writing them as well as the researchers politically correct conclusion in most cases. That's because I haven't gotten to going through and pointing out the reasons I put all of them in here.
8 + Welcome to the **Research at a Glance** repository. This section serves as a **centralized reference hub** for key academic studies related to various important Racial themes. Each study is categorized for easy navigation and presented in a **collapsible format** to maintain a clean layout. I wanted to make this for a couple of reasons. Number one is organization. There are a ton of useful studies out there that expose the truth, sometimes inadvertently. You'll notice that in this initial draft the summaries are often woke and reflect the bias of the AI writing them as well as the researchers politically correct conclusion in most cases. That's because I haven't gotten to going through and pointing out the reasons I put all of them in here.
10 10  
11 11  
12 12   There is often an underlying hypocrisy or double standard, saying the quiet part out loud, or conclusions that are so much of an antithesis to what the data shows that made me want to include it. At least, thats the idea for once its polished. I have about 150 more studies to upload, so it will be a few weeks before I get through it all. Until such time, feel free to search for them yourself and edit in what you find, or add your own studies. If you like you can do it manually, or if you'd rather go the route I did, just rename the study to its doi number and feed the study into an AI and tell them to summarize the study using the following format:
... ... @@ -21,15 +21,11 @@
21 21  
22 22  
23 23  
24 -
25 -
26 -
27 -
28 -
29 29  = Genetics =
30 30  
25 +{{expandable summary="
31 31  
32 -{{expandable summary="Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History"}}
27 +Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History"}}
33 33  **Source:** *Nature*
34 34  **Date of Publication:** *2009*
35 35  **Author(s):** *David Reich, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Alkes L. Price, Lalji Singh*
... ... @@ -163,9 +163,8 @@
163 163  {{/expandable}}
164 164  {{/expandable}}
165 165  
166 -{{expandable summary="
161 +{{expandable summary="
167 167  
168 -
169 169  Study: Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"}}
170 170  **Source:** *Nature Genetics*
171 171  **Date of Publication:** *2015*
... ... @@ -233,9 +233,8 @@
233 233  {{/expandable}}
234 234  {{/expandable}}
235 235  
236 -{{expandable summary="
230 +{{expandable summary="
237 237  
238 -
239 239  Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease"}}
240 240  **Source:** *Nature Reviews Genetics*
241 241  **Date of Publication:** *2002*
... ... @@ -303,9 +303,8 @@
303 303  {{/expandable}}
304 304  {{/expandable}}
305 305  
306 -{{expandable summary="
299 +{{expandable summary="
307 307  
308 -
309 309  Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA"}}
310 310  **Source:** *bioRxiv Preprint*
311 311  **Date of Publication:** *September 15, 2024*
... ... @@ -716,6 +716,7 @@
716 716  {{/expandable}}
717 717  
718 718  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
711 +
719 719  {{/expandable}}
720 720  {{/expandable}}
721 721  
... ... @@ -1058,8 +1058,9 @@
1058 1058  {{/expandable}}
1059 1059  {{/expandable}}
1060 1060  
1054 +{{expandable summary="
1061 1061  
1062 -{{expandable summary="Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"}}
1056 +Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"}}
1063 1063  **Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
1064 1064  **Date of Publication:** *2014*
1065 1065  **Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley, Jan te Nijenhuis, Raegan Murphy*
... ... @@ -1394,6 +1394,7 @@
1394 1394  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1395 1395  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]
1396 1396  {{/expandable}}
1391 +{{/expandable}}
1397 1397  
1398 1398  = Media =
1399 1399  
... ... @@ -1597,3 +1597,109 @@
1597 1597  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]
1598 1598  {{/expandable}}
1599 1599  {{/expandable}}
1595 +
1596 +{{expandable summary="Study: White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years"}}
1597 +Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
1598 +Date of Publication: February 20, 2024
1599 +Author(s): Julia Diana Lenk, Jochen Hartmann, Henrik Sattler
1600 +Title: "White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years: A Meta-Analysis"
1601 +DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2307505121
1602 +Subject Matter: Advertising, Race, Consumer Behavior, Meta-Analysis
1603 +
1604 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1605 +
1606 +Study Scale:
1607 +
1608 +62 studies, 332 effect sizes, 10,186 participants (Black and White Americans).
1609 +
1610 +Covers the period 1956–2022.
1611 +
1612 +Cohen’s d Effect Sizes (Model-Free):
1613 +
1614 +Black viewers: d = 0.50 → strong, consistent ingroup preference for Black models.
1615 +
1616 +White viewers: d = –0.08 overall; pre-2000: d = –0.16 (ingroup); post-2000: d = +0.02 (outgroup leaning).
1617 +
1618 +Regression Findings:
1619 +
1620 +White viewers’ preference for Black models increases by ~0.0128 d/year since 1956 (p < 0.05).
1621 +
1622 +By 2022, White viewers showed positive directional preference for Black endorsers.
1623 +
1624 +Black viewer preferences remained stable across the 66 years.
1625 +{{/expandable}}
1626 +
1627 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1628 +
1629 +Primary Observations:
1630 +
1631 +Ingroup favoritism is evident: Black viewers consistently prefer Black endorsers.
1632 +
1633 +White viewers’ preferences have shifted significantly over time toward favoring Black endorsers.
1634 +
1635 +Temporal Trends:
1636 +
1637 +Turning point: Around 2002–2003, White viewers began showing a positive (though small) preference for Black endorsers.
1638 +
1639 +Moderator Effects:
1640 +
1641 +Low anti-Black prejudice and low White ethnic identification correlate with greater White preference for Black endorsers.
1642 +
1643 +Economic hardship (e.g., high unemployment) slightly reduces White preference for Black endorsers.
1644 +
1645 +Identification Model:
1646 +
1647 +Preference changes are stronger when outcomes measure identification with endorsers (e.g., similarity, attractiveness).
1648 +{{/expandable}}
1649 +
1650 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1651 +
1652 +Strengths of the Study:
1653 +
1654 +Longest-running meta-analysis on interracial preferences in advertising.
1655 +
1656 +Includes multilevel modeling and 21 meta-analytic covariates.
1657 +
1658 +Accounts for both perceiver and societal context, and controls for publication bias.
1659 +
1660 +Limitations:
1661 +
1662 +Only examines Black and White racial dynamics—doesn’t cover Hispanic, Asian, or multiracial groups.
1663 +
1664 +72% of effect sizes are from student samples (not fully generalizable).
1665 +
1666 +Social desirability bias may affect lab-based responses.
1667 +
1668 +Suggestions for Improvement:
1669 +
1670 +Include field experiments and more representative samples (age, class, ideology).
1671 +
1672 +Examine how Black models are portrayed, not just if they are shown.
1673 +
1674 +Extend research to other racial groups and multiracial representations.
1675 +{{/expandable}}
1676 +
1677 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1678 +
1679 +Provides empirical support for the dynamic shift in White American attitudes over time.
1680 +
1681 +Directly informs discussions about media representation, consumer behavior, and racial identity.
1682 +
1683 +Supports policy and commercial arguments for including more diverse models in advertising.
1684 +{{/expandable}}
1685 +
1686 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1687 +
1688 +Expand analysis to Latino, Asian, and multiracial models in media.
1689 +
1690 +Study real-world (non-lab) consumer reactions to racial diversity in advertising.
1691 +
1692 +Investigate how economic anxiety influences racial preferences in other domains (e.g., hiring, education).
1693 +
1694 +Explore how virtual influencers or AI-generated models affect racial perceptions.
1695 +{{/expandable}}
1696 +
1697 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1698 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:lenk-et-al-white-americans-preference-for-black-people-in-advertising-has-increased-in-the-past-66-years-a-meta-analysis.pdf]]
1699 +{{/expandable}}
1700 +{{/expandable}}