0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

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

From version 108.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/04 07:49
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

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -1123,65 +1123,67 @@
1123 1123  = Whiteness & White Guilt =
1124 1124  
1125 1125  {{expandable summary="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}}
1126 -**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1127 -**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1128 -**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1129 -**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1130 -**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1131 -**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sports, Higher Education, Institutional Racism*
1126 +**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1127 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1128 +**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1129 +**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1130 +**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1131 +**Subject Matter:** *Critical Race Theory, Sports Sociology, Anti-White Institutional Framing*
1132 1132  
1133 1133  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1134 1134  1. **General Observations:**
1135 - - Analyzed **47 college athlete narratives** to explore racial disparities in non-revenue sports.
1136 - - Found three interrelated themes: **racial segregation, racial innocence, and racial protection**.
1135 + - Based on **47 athlete interviews**, cherry-picked from non-revenue Division I sports.
1136 + - The study claims **segregation”**, but presents no evidence of actual exclusion or policy bias — just demographic imbalance.
1137 1137  
1138 1138  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1139 - - **Predominantly white sports programs** reinforce racial hierarchies in college athletics.
1140 - - **Recruitment policies favor white athletes** from affluent, suburban backgrounds.
1139 + - Attributes **White participation** in certain sports to "systemic racism", ignoring **self-selection, geography, and cultural affinity**.
1140 + - Claims White athletes are “protected” from race discussions — but never engages with **Black overrepresentation in revenue sports**.
1141 1141  
1142 1142  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1143 - - White athletes are **socialized to remain unaware of racial privilege** in their athletic careers.
1144 - - Media and institutional narratives protect white athletes from discussions on race and systemic inequities.
1143 + - White athletes are portrayed as **ignorant of their privilege**, a claim drawn entirely from CRT frameworks rather than behavior or outcome.
1144 + - **No empirical data** is offered on policy, scholarship distribution, or team selection criteria.
1145 1145  {{/expandable}}
1146 1146  
1147 1147  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1148 1148  1. **Primary Observations:**
1149 - - Colleges **actively recruit white athletes** from majority-white communities.
1150 - - Institutional policies **uphold whiteness** by failing to challenge racial biases in recruitment and team culture.
1149 + - Frames **normal demographic patterns** (e.g., majority-White rosters in tennis or rowing) as "institutional whiteness".
1150 + - **Ignores the structural dominance** of Black athletes in high-profile revenue sports like football and basketball.
1151 1151  
1152 1152  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1153 - - **White athletes show limited awareness** of their racial advantage in sports.
1154 - - **Black athletes are overrepresented** in revenue-generating sports but underrepresented in non-revenue teams.
1153 + - White athletes are criticized for **lacking racial awareness**, reinforcing the moral framing of **Whiteness as inherently problematic**.
1154 + - **Cultural preference, individual merit, and athletic subculture** are all excluded from consideration.
1155 1155  
1156 1156  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1157 - - Examines **how sports serve as a mechanism for maintaining racial privilege** in higher education.
1158 - - Discusses the **role of athletics in reinforcing systemic segregation and exclusion**.
1157 + - Argues that college sports **reinforce racial hierarchy** without ever showing how White athletes benefit more than Black athletes.
1158 + - Offers **no comparative analysis** of scholarships, graduation rates, or media portrayal by race.
1159 1159  {{/expandable}}
1160 1160  
1161 1161  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1162 1162  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1163 - - **Comprehensive qualitative analysis** of race in college sports.
1164 - - Examines **institutional conditions** that sustain racial disparities in athletics.
1163 + - Useful as a clear example of **how CRT ideologues weaponize demography** to frame White majority spaces as inherently suspect.
1164 + - Shows how **academic literature systematically avoids symmetrical analysis** when outcomes favor White participants.
1165 1165  
1166 1166  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1167 - - Focuses primarily on **Division I non-revenue sports**, limiting generalizability to other divisions.
1168 - - Lacks extensive **quantitative data on racial demographics** in college athletics.
1167 + - **Excludes revenue sports**, where Black athletes dominate by numbers, prestige, and compensation.
1168 + - **Fails to explain** how team composition emerges from voluntary participation, geography, or subcultural identity.
1169 + - Treats **racial imbalance as proof of racism**, bypassing merit, interest, or socioeconomic context.
1169 1169  
1170 1170  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1171 - - Future research should **compare recruitment policies across different sports and divisions**.
1172 - - Investigate **how athletic scholarships contribute to racial inequities in higher education**.
1172 + - Include **White athlete perspectives** without pre-framing them as racially naive or complicit.
1173 + - **Compare all sports**, including those where Black athletes thrive and lead.
1174 + - Remove CRT framing and **evaluate outcomes empirically**, not ideologically.
1173 1173  {{/expandable}}
1174 1174  
1175 1175  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1176 -- Provides evidence of **systemic racial biases** in college sports recruitment.
1177 -- Highlights **how institutional policies protect whiteness** in non-revenue athletics.
1178 -- Supports research on **diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in sports and education**.
1178 +- Demonstrates how **DEI-aligned research reframes benign patterns** as oppressive when White majorities are involved.
1179 +- Illustrates **anti-White academic framing** in environments where no institutional barrier exists.
1180 +- Provides a concrete example of how **CRT avoids acknowledging Black dominance in elite spaces** (revenue athletics).
1179 1179  {{/expandable}}
1180 1180  
1181 1181  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1182 -1. Investigate how **racial stereotypes influence college athlete recruitment**.
1183 -2. Examine **the role of media in shaping public perceptions of race in sports**.
1184 -3. Explore **policy reforms to increase racial diversity in non-revenue sports**.
1184 +1. Investigate **racial self-sorting and cultural affiliation** in athletic participation.
1185 +2. Compare **media framing of White-majority vs. Black-majority sports**.
1186 +3. Study **how CRT narratives distort athletic merit and demographic outcomes**.
1185 1185  {{/expandable}}
1186 1186  
1187 1187  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
... ... @@ -1189,6 +1189,7 @@
1189 1189  {{/expandable}}
1190 1190  {{/expandable}}
1191 1191  
1194 +
1192 1192  {{expandable summary="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
1193 1193  **Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1194 1194  **Date of Publication:** *2016*
... ... @@ -1388,6 +1388,7 @@
1388 1388  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1389 1389  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]
1390 1390  {{/expandable}}
1394 +{{/expandable}}
1391 1391  
1392 1392  = Media =
1393 1393  
... ... @@ -1591,4 +1591,109 @@
1591 1591  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]
1592 1592  {{/expandable}}
1593 1593  {{/expandable}}
1598 +
1599 +{{expandable summary="Study: White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years"}}
1600 +Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
1601 +Date of Publication: February 20, 2024
1602 +Author(s): Julia Diana Lenk, Jochen Hartmann, Henrik Sattler
1603 +Title: "White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years: A Meta-Analysis"
1604 +DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2307505121
1605 +Subject Matter: Advertising, Race, Consumer Behavior, Meta-Analysis
1606 +
1607 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1608 +
1609 +Study Scale:
1610 +
1611 +62 studies, 332 effect sizes, 10,186 participants (Black and White Americans).
1612 +
1613 +Covers the period 1956–2022.
1614 +
1615 +Cohen’s d Effect Sizes (Model-Free):
1616 +
1617 +Black viewers: d = 0.50 → strong, consistent ingroup preference for Black models.
1618 +
1619 +White viewers: d = –0.08 overall; pre-2000: d = –0.16 (ingroup); post-2000: d = +0.02 (outgroup leaning).
1620 +
1621 +Regression Findings:
1622 +
1623 +White viewers’ preference for Black models increases by ~0.0128 d/year since 1956 (p < 0.05).
1624 +
1625 +By 2022, White viewers showed positive directional preference for Black endorsers.
1626 +
1627 +Black viewer preferences remained stable across the 66 years.
1594 1594  {{/expandable}}
1629 +
1630 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1631 +
1632 +Primary Observations:
1633 +
1634 +Ingroup favoritism is evident: Black viewers consistently prefer Black endorsers.
1635 +
1636 +White viewers’ preferences have shifted significantly over time toward favoring Black endorsers.
1637 +
1638 +Temporal Trends:
1639 +
1640 +Turning point: Around 2002–2003, White viewers began showing a positive (though small) preference for Black endorsers.
1641 +
1642 +Moderator Effects:
1643 +
1644 +Low anti-Black prejudice and low White ethnic identification correlate with greater White preference for Black endorsers.
1645 +
1646 +Economic hardship (e.g., high unemployment) slightly reduces White preference for Black endorsers.
1647 +
1648 +Identification Model:
1649 +
1650 +Preference changes are stronger when outcomes measure identification with endorsers (e.g., similarity, attractiveness).
1651 +{{/expandable}}
1652 +
1653 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1654 +
1655 +Strengths of the Study:
1656 +
1657 +Longest-running meta-analysis on interracial preferences in advertising.
1658 +
1659 +Includes multilevel modeling and 21 meta-analytic covariates.
1660 +
1661 +Accounts for both perceiver and societal context, and controls for publication bias.
1662 +
1663 +Limitations:
1664 +
1665 +Only examines Black and White racial dynamics—doesn’t cover Hispanic, Asian, or multiracial groups.
1666 +
1667 +72% of effect sizes are from student samples (not fully generalizable).
1668 +
1669 +Social desirability bias may affect lab-based responses.
1670 +
1671 +Suggestions for Improvement:
1672 +
1673 +Include field experiments and more representative samples (age, class, ideology).
1674 +
1675 +Examine how Black models are portrayed, not just if they are shown.
1676 +
1677 +Extend research to other racial groups and multiracial representations.
1678 +{{/expandable}}
1679 +
1680 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1681 +
1682 +Provides empirical support for the dynamic shift in White American attitudes over time.
1683 +
1684 +Directly informs discussions about media representation, consumer behavior, and racial identity.
1685 +
1686 +Supports policy and commercial arguments for including more diverse models in advertising.
1687 +{{/expandable}}
1688 +
1689 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1690 +
1691 +Expand analysis to Latino, Asian, and multiracial models in media.
1692 +
1693 +Study real-world (non-lab) consumer reactions to racial diversity in advertising.
1694 +
1695 +Investigate how economic anxiety influences racial preferences in other domains (e.g., hiring, education).
1696 +
1697 +Explore how virtual influencers or AI-generated models affect racial perceptions.
1698 +{{/expandable}}
1699 +
1700 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1701 +[[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]]
1702 +{{/expandable}}
1703 +{{/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