0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

Last modified by Ryan C on 2025/06/26 03:09

From 104.1 to 105.1 From 111.1 to 112.1

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

111.1

edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 03:15

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Raw
Rendered

Summary

Page properties (2 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
Attachments (0 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
- lenk-et-al-white-americans-preference-for-black-people-in-advertising-has-increased-in-the-past-66-years-a-meta-analysis.pdf

Details

Page properties

Parent

@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
--Main.Studies.WebHome
++Main Categories.Science & Research.WebHome

Content

@@ -1,4 +2,3 @@
--
  {{toc/}}
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
--    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.
++    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.
      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 @@
--
--
--
--
--
  = Genetics =
++{{expandable summary="
--{{expandable summary="Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History"}}
++Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History"}}
  **Source:** *Nature*
  **Date of Publication:** *2009*
  **Author(s):** *David Reich, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Alkes L. Price, Lalji Singh*
@@ -163,9 +163,8 @@
  {{/expandable}}
  {{/expandable}}
--{{expandable summary="
++{{expandable summary="
--
  Study: Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"}}
  **Source:** *Nature Genetics*
  **Date of Publication:** *2015*
@@ -233,9 +233,8 @@
  {{/expandable}}
  {{/expandable}}
--{{expandable summary="
++{{expandable summary="
--
  Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease"}}
  **Source:** *Nature Reviews Genetics*
  **Date of Publication:** *2002*
@@ -303,9 +303,8 @@
  {{/expandable}}
  {{/expandable}}
--{{expandable summary="
++{{expandable summary="
--
  Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA"}}
  **Source:** *bioRxiv Preprint*
  **Date of Publication:** *September 15, 2024*
@@ -716,6 +716,7 @@
  {{/expandable}}
  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
++
  {{/expandable}}
  {{/expandable}}
@@ -1058,8 +1058,9 @@
  {{/expandable}}
  {{/expandable}}
++{{expandable summary="
--{{expandable summary="Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"}}
++Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"}}
  **Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
  **Date of Publication:** *2014*
  **Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley, Jan te Nijenhuis, Raegan Murphy*
@@ -1129,65 +1129,67 @@
  = Whiteness & White Guilt =
  {{expandable summary="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}}
--**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
--**Date of Publication:** *2019*
--**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
--**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
--**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
--**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sports, Higher Education, Institutional Racism*
++**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
++**Date of Publication:** *2019*
++**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
++**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
++**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
++**Subject Matter:** *Critical Race Theory, Sports Sociology, Anti-White Institutional Framing*
  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
 . **General Observations:**
--   - Analyzed **47 college athlete narratives** to explore racial disparities in non-revenue sports.
--   - Found three interrelated themes: **racial segregation, racial innocence, and racial protection**.
++   - Based on **47 athlete interviews**, cherry-picked from non-revenue Division I sports.
++   - The study claims **“segregation”**, but presents no evidence of actual exclusion or policy bias — just demographic imbalance.
 . **Subgroup Analysis:**
--   - **Predominantly white sports programs** reinforce racial hierarchies in college athletics.
--   - **Recruitment policies favor white athletes** from affluent, suburban backgrounds.
++   - Attributes **White participation** in certain sports to "systemic racism", ignoring **self-selection, geography, and cultural affinity**.
++   - Claims White athletes are “protected” from race discussions — but never engages with **Black overrepresentation in revenue sports**.
 . **Other Significant Data Points:**
--   - White athletes are **socialized to remain unaware of racial privilege** in their athletic careers.
--   - Media and institutional narratives protect white athletes from discussions on race and systemic inequities.
++   - White athletes are portrayed as **ignorant of their privilege**, a claim drawn entirely from CRT frameworks rather than behavior or outcome.
++   - **No empirical data** is offered on policy, scholarship distribution, or team selection criteria.
  {{/expandable}}
  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
 . **Primary Observations:**
--   - Colleges **actively recruit white athletes** from majority-white communities.
--   - Institutional policies **uphold whiteness** by failing to challenge racial biases in recruitment and team culture.
++   - Frames **normal demographic patterns** (e.g., majority-White rosters in tennis or rowing) as "institutional whiteness".
++   - **Ignores the structural dominance** of Black athletes in high-profile revenue sports like football and basketball.
 . **Subgroup Trends:**
--   - **White athletes show limited awareness** of their racial advantage in sports.
--   - **Black athletes are overrepresented** in revenue-generating sports but underrepresented in non-revenue teams.
++   - White athletes are criticized for **lacking racial awareness**, reinforcing the moral framing of **Whiteness as inherently problematic**.
++   - **Cultural preference, individual merit, and athletic subculture** are all excluded from consideration.
 . **Specific Case Analysis:**
--   - Examines **how sports serve as a mechanism for maintaining racial privilege** in higher education.
--   - Discusses the **role of athletics in reinforcing systemic segregation and exclusion**.
++   - Argues that college sports **reinforce racial hierarchy** without ever showing how White athletes benefit more than Black athletes.
++   - Offers **no comparative analysis** of scholarships, graduation rates, or media portrayal by race.
  {{/expandable}}
  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
 . **Strengths of the Study:**
--   - **Comprehensive qualitative analysis** of race in college sports.
--   - Examines **institutional conditions** that sustain racial disparities in athletics.
++   - Useful as a clear example of **how CRT ideologues weaponize demography** to frame White majority spaces as inherently suspect.
++   - Shows how **academic literature systematically avoids symmetrical analysis** when outcomes favor White participants.
 . **Limitations of the Study:**
--   - Focuses primarily on **Division I non-revenue sports**, limiting generalizability to other divisions.
--   - Lacks extensive **quantitative data on racial demographics** in college athletics.
++   - **Excludes revenue sports**, where Black athletes dominate by numbers, prestige, and compensation.
++   - **Fails to explain** how team composition emerges from voluntary participation, geography, or subcultural identity.
++   - Treats **racial imbalance as proof of racism**, bypassing merit, interest, or socioeconomic context.
 . **Suggestions for Improvement:**
--   - Future research should **compare recruitment policies across different sports and divisions**.
--   - Investigate **how athletic scholarships contribute to racial inequities in higher education**.
++   - Include **White athlete perspectives** without pre-framing them as racially naive or complicit.
++   - **Compare all sports**, including those where Black athletes thrive and lead.
++   - Remove CRT framing and **evaluate outcomes empirically**, not ideologically.
  {{/expandable}}
  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
--- Provides evidence of **systemic racial biases** in college sports recruitment.
--- Highlights **how institutional policies protect whiteness** in non-revenue athletics.
--- Supports research on **diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in sports and education**.
++- Demonstrates how **DEI-aligned research reframes benign patterns** as oppressive when White majorities are involved.
++- Illustrates **anti-White academic framing** in environments where no institutional barrier exists.
++- Provides a concrete example of how **CRT avoids acknowledging Black dominance in elite spaces** (revenue athletics).
  {{/expandable}}
  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
--1. Investigate how **racial stereotypes influence college athlete recruitment**.
--2. Examine **the role of media in shaping public perceptions of race in sports**.
--3. Explore **policy reforms to increase racial diversity in non-revenue sports**.
++1. Investigate **racial self-sorting and cultural affiliation** in athletic participation.
++2. Compare **media framing of White-majority vs. Black-majority sports**.
++3. Study **how CRT narratives distort athletic merit and demographic outcomes**.
  {{/expandable}}
  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
@@ -1195,6 +1195,7 @@
  {{/expandable}}
  {{/expandable}}
++
  {{expandable summary="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
  **Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
  **Date of Publication:** *2016*
@@ -1394,6 +1394,7 @@
  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]
  {{/expandable}}
++{{/expandable}}
  = Media =
@@ -1597,3 +1597,109 @@
  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]
  {{/expandable}}
  {{/expandable}}
++
++{{expandable summary="Study: White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years"}}
++Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
++Date of Publication: February 20, 2024
++Author(s): Julia Diana Lenk, Jochen Hartmann, Henrik Sattler
++Title: "White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years: A Meta-Analysis"
++DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2307505121
++Subject Matter: Advertising, Race, Consumer Behavior, Meta-Analysis
++
++{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
++
++Study Scale:
++
++62 studies, 332 effect sizes, 10,186 participants (Black and White Americans).
++
++Covers the period 1956–2022.
++
++Cohen’s d Effect Sizes (Model-Free):
++
++Black viewers: d = 0.50 → strong, consistent ingroup preference for Black models.
++
++White viewers: d = –0.08 overall; pre-2000: d = –0.16 (ingroup); post-2000: d = +0.02 (outgroup leaning).
++
++Regression Findings:
++
++White viewers’ preference for Black models increases by ~0.0128 d/year since 1956 (p < 0.05).
++
++By 2022, White viewers showed positive directional preference for Black endorsers.
++
++Black viewer preferences remained stable across the 66 years.
++{{/expandable}}
++
++{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
++
++Primary Observations:
++
++Ingroup favoritism is evident: Black viewers consistently prefer Black endorsers.
++
++White viewers’ preferences have shifted significantly over time toward favoring Black endorsers.
++
++Temporal Trends:
++
++Turning point: Around 2002–2003, White viewers began showing a positive (though small) preference for Black endorsers.
++
++Moderator Effects:
++
++Low anti-Black prejudice and low White ethnic identification correlate with greater White preference for Black endorsers.
++
++Economic hardship (e.g., high unemployment) slightly reduces White preference for Black endorsers.
++
++Identification Model:
++
++Preference changes are stronger when outcomes measure identification with endorsers (e.g., similarity, attractiveness).
++{{/expandable}}
++
++{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
++
++Strengths of the Study:
++
++Longest-running meta-analysis on interracial preferences in advertising.
++
++Includes multilevel modeling and 21 meta-analytic covariates.
++
++Accounts for both perceiver and societal context, and controls for publication bias.
++
++Limitations:
++
++Only examines Black and White racial dynamics—doesn’t cover Hispanic, Asian, or multiracial groups.
++
++72% of effect sizes are from student samples (not fully generalizable).
++
++Social desirability bias may affect lab-based responses.
++
++Suggestions for Improvement:
++
++Include field experiments and more representative samples (age, class, ideology).
++
++Examine how Black models are portrayed, not just if they are shown.
++
++Extend research to other racial groups and multiracial representations.
++{{/expandable}}
++
++{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
++
++Provides empirical support for the dynamic shift in White American attitudes over time.
++
++Directly informs discussions about media representation, consumer behavior, and racial identity.
++
++Supports policy and commercial arguments for including more diverse models in advertising.
++{{/expandable}}
++
++{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
++
++Expand analysis to Latino, Asian, and multiracial models in media.
++
++Study real-world (non-lab) consumer reactions to racial diversity in advertising.
++
++Investigate how economic anxiety influences racial preferences in other domains (e.g., hiring, education).
++
++Explore how virtual influencers or AI-generated models affect racial perceptions.
++{{/expandable}}
++
++{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
++[[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]]
++{{/expandable}}
++{{/expandable}}

lenk-et-al-white-americans-preference-for-black-people-in-advertising-has-increased-in-the-past-66-years-a-meta-analysis.pdf

Author

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+XWiki.AdminAngriff

Size

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2.1 MB

Content