0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

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

From version 110.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 02:53
Change comment: Uploaded new attachment "lenk-et-al-white-americans-preference-for-black-people-in-advertising-has-increased-in-the-past-66-years-a-meta-analysis.pdf", version 1.1
To version 112.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 03:36
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"}}
... ... @@ -1189,72 +1189,71 @@
1189 1189  {{/expandable}}
1190 1190  {{/expandable}}
1191 1191  
1194 +
1192 1192  {{expandable summary="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
1193 -**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1194 -**Date of Publication:** *2016*
1195 -**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axta, M. Norman Oliver*
1196 +**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1197 +**Date of Publication:** *2016*
1198 +**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axt, M. Norman Oliver*
1196 1196  **Title:** *"Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs About Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites"*
1197 -**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1198 -**Subject Matter:** *Health Disparities, Racial Bias, Medical Treatment*
1200 +**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1201 +**Subject Matter:** *Medical Ethics, Race in Medicine, Implicit Bias*
1199 1199  
1200 1200  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1201 1201  1. **General Observations:**
1202 - - Study analyzed **racial disparities in pain perception and treatment recommendations**.
1203 - - Found that **white laypeople and medical students endorsed false beliefs about biological differences** between Black and white individuals.
1205 + - Analyzed responses from **222 white medical students and residents**.
1206 + - Investigated belief in **false biological differences between Black and White people**.
1207 + - Measured how those beliefs affected **pain ratings and treatment recommendations**.
1204 1204  
1205 1205  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1206 - - **50% of medical students surveyed endorsed at least one false belief about biological differences**.
1207 - - Participants who held these false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients pain levels**.
1210 + - **50% of participants endorsed at least one false belief** (e.g., Black people have thicker skin or less sensitive nerve endings).
1211 + - Those who endorsed false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients' pain**.
1208 1208  
1209 1209  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1210 - - **Black patients were less likely to receive appropriate pain treatment** compared to white patients.
1211 - - The study confirmed that **historical misconceptions about racial differences still persist in modern medicine**.
1214 + - Bias was **most prominent among first-year students**, diminishing slightly with experience.
1215 + - Study used **hypothetical case vignettes**, not real patient data.
1212 1212  {{/expandable}}
1213 1213  
1214 1214  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1215 1215  1. **Primary Observations:**
1216 - - False beliefs about biological racial differences **correlate with racial disparities in pain treatment**.
1217 - - Medical students and residents who endorsed these beliefs **showed greater racial bias in treatment recommendations**.
1220 + - False biological beliefs were **strongly correlated with racial disparity** in pain assessment.
1221 + - Endorsement of such beliefs led to **less appropriate treatment for Black patients** in fictional cases.
1218 1218  
1219 1219  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1220 - - Physicians who **did not endorse these beliefs** showed **no racial bias** in treatment recommendations.
1221 - - Bias was **strongest among first-year medical students** and decreased slightly in later years of training.
1224 + - Medical students with **no false beliefs showed no treatment bias**.
1225 + - No evidence was presented of **active discrimination** — bias appeared linked to **misinformation, not malice**.
1222 1222  
1223 1223  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1224 - - Study participants **underestimated Black patients' pain and recommended less effective pain treatments**.
1225 - - The study suggests that **racial disparities in medical care stem, in part, from these enduring false beliefs**.
1228 + - Fictional vignettes demonstrated that **misinformation about biology**, not systemic malice, led to unequal care.
1229 + - The study **did not show bias against White patients**, nor explore disparities affecting them.
1226 1226  {{/expandable}}
1227 1227  
1228 1228  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1229 1229  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1230 - - **First empirical study to connect false racial beliefs with medical decision-making**.
1231 - - Utilizes a **large sample of medical students and residents** from diverse institutions.
1234 + - Provides valuable insight into **how medical myths can affect judgment**.
1235 + - Demonstrates the importance of **clinical education and evidence-based practice**.
1232 1232  
1233 1233  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1234 - - The study focuses on **Black vs. white disparities**, leaving other racial/ethnic groups unexplored.
1235 - - Participants' responses were based on **hypothetical medical cases, not real-world treatment decisions**.
1238 + - Fails to examine **bias affecting White patients**, including under-treatment of opioid dependence or mental health.
1239 + - Only focuses on one direction of disparity, treating **White patients as a control** rather than a population worthy of study.
1240 + - **Overemphasizes "racial bias"** narrative despite the findings being more about **ignorance than intent**.
1236 1236  
1237 1237  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1238 - - Future research should examine **how these biases manifest in real clinical settings**.
1239 - - Investigate **whether medical training can correct these biases over time**.
1243 + - Include **comparison groups for all races**, not just a binary Black–White framework.
1244 + - Investigate **systemic neglect of poor rural White populations**, especially in Appalachia and the Midwest.
1245 + - Clarify the **distinction between false belief and racial animus**, which the study conflates under CRT framing.
1240 1240  {{/expandable}}
1241 1241  
1242 1242  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1243 -- Highlights **racial disparities in healthcare**, specifically in pain assessment and treatment.
1244 -- Supports **research on implicit bias and its impact on medical outcomes**.
1245 -- Provides evidence for **the need to address racial bias in medical education**.
1249 +- Shows how **DEI-aligned narratives exploit limited findings** to vilify White professionals.
1250 +- Provides an example of a **legitimate medical education issue being repackaged as “racial bias.”**
1251 +- Highlights the **lack of reciprocal scrutiny** of how minorities may receive **preferential narrative framing** or **programmatic support**.
1246 1246  {{/expandable}}
1247 1247  
1248 1248  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1249 -1. Investigate **interventions to reduce racial bias in medical decision-making**.
1250 -2. Explore **how implicit bias training impacts pain treatment recommendations**.
1251 -3. Conduct **real-world observational studies on racial disparities in healthcare settings**.
1252 -{{/expandable}}
1255 +1. Study whether **DEI training reduces false beliefs** or simply **induces White guilt**.
1256 +2. Investigate **biases against White rural patients**, especially regarding **opioid or pain management stigma**.
1257 +3. Conduct **clinical outcome studies**, not self-reported vignettes, to test **real-world disparities**.
1253 1253  
1254 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1255 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1516047113.pdf]]
1256 -{{/expandable}}
1257 -{{/expandable}}
1258 1258  
1259 1259  {{expandable summary="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}}
1260 1260  **Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
... ... @@ -1324,72 +1324,75 @@
1324 1324  {{/expandable}}
1325 1325  
1326 1326  {{expandable summary="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"}}
1327 -**Source:** *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies*
1328 -**Date of Publication:** *2023*
1329 -**Author(s):** *Maurice Crul, Frans Lelie, Elif Keskiner, Laure Michon, Ismintha Waldring*
1330 -**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1331 -**DOI:** [10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548](https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548)
1332 -**Subject Matter:** *Urban Sociology, Migration Studies, Integration*
1328 +**Source:** *Urban Studies*
1329 +**Date of Publication:** *2023*
1330 +**Author(s):** *Nina Glick Schiller, Jens Schneider, Ayşe Çağlar*
1331 +**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1332 +**DOI:** [10.1177/00420980231170057](https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231170057)
1333 +**Subject Matter:** *Urban Diversity, Migration, Identity Politics*
1333 1333  
1334 1334  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1335 1335  1. **General Observations:**
1336 - - Study examines the role of **people without migration background** in majority-minority cities.
1337 - - Analyzes **over 3,000 survey responses and 150 in-depth interviews** from six North-Western European cities.
1337 + - Based on interviews with **White European residents** in three major European cities.
1338 + - Focused on how **"non-migrants" (code for native Whites)** perceive and adapt to so-called “superdiversity”.
1338 1338  
1339 1339  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1340 - - Explores differences in **integration, social interactions, and perceptions of diversity**.
1341 - - Studies how **class, education, and neighborhood composition** affect adaptation to urban diversity.
1341 + - Interviewees were **overwhelmingly framed as obstacles** to multicultural harmony.
1342 + - Researchers **pathologized attachment to local culture or ethnic identity** as “resistance to change.
1342 1342  
1343 1343  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1344 - - The study introduces the **Becoming a Minority (BaM) project**, a large-scale investigation of urban demographic shifts.
1345 - - **People without migration background perceive diversity differently**, with some embracing and others resisting change.
1345 + - Claims that even positive civic participation by Whites may **“reinforce white privilege.”**
1346 + - Provides **no quantitative data** on actual neighborhood changes or crime statistics.
1346 1346  {{/expandable}}
1347 1347  
1348 1348  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1349 1349  1. **Primary Observations:**
1350 - - The study **challenges traditional integration theories**, arguing that non-migrant groups also undergo adaptation processes.
1351 - - Some residents **struggle with demographic changes**, while others see diversity as an asset.
1351 + - Argues that White natives, by simply existing and having a historical presence, **“shape urban inequality.”**
1352 + - Positions White cultural norms as inherently oppressive or exclusionary.
1352 1352  
1353 1353  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1354 - - Young, educated individuals in urban areas **are more open to cultural diversity**.
1355 - - Older and less mobile residents **report feelings of displacement and social isolation**.
1355 + - Critiques White residents for seeking **cultural familiarity or demographic continuity.**
1356 + - Presents **White neighborhood cohesion** as a form of invisible boundary-making.
1356 1356  
1357 1357  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1358 - - Examines how **people without migration background navigate majority-minority settings** in cities like Amsterdam and Vienna.
1359 - - Analyzes **whether former ethnic majority groups now perceive themselves as minorities**.
1359 + - Interviews frame **normal concerns about safety, schooling, or housing** as coded racism.
1360 + - Treats **multicultural disruption** as inherently positive, and **resistance as bigotry.**
1360 1360  {{/expandable}}
1361 1361  
1362 1362  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1363 1363  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1364 - - **Innovative approach** by examining the impact of migration on native populations.
1365 - - Uses **both qualitative and quantitative data** for robust analysis.
1365 + - Reveals how **social scientists increasingly treat Whiteness itself as a problem.**
1366 + - Offers an **unintentional case study in academic anti-White framing.**
1366 1366  
1367 1367  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1368 - - Limited to **Western European urban settings**, missing perspectives from other global regions.
1369 - - Does not fully explore **policy interventions for fostering social cohesion**.
1369 + - **Completely ignores migrant-driven displacement** of working-class Whites.
1370 + - Makes **no attempt to understand White residents sympathetically**, only as barriers.
1371 + - Lacks analysis of **economic factors, crime, housing scarcity, or policy failures** contributing to discontent.
1370 1370  
1371 1371  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1372 - - Expand research to **other geographical contexts** to understand migration effects globally.
1373 - - Investigate **long-term trends in urban adaptation and community building**.
1374 + - Include **White perspectives without presuming guilt or fragility.**
1375 + - Disaggregate “White” by **class, locality, or experience** — not treat as a monolith.
1376 + - Balance cultural analysis with **hard demographic and economic data.**
1374 1374  {{/expandable}}
1375 1375  
1376 1376  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1377 -- Provides a **new perspective on urban integration**, shifting focus from migrants to native-born populations.
1378 -- Highlights the **role of social and economic power in shaping urban diversity outcomes**.
1379 -- Challenges existing **assimilation theories by showing bidirectional adaptation in diverse cities**.
1380 +- Demonstrates how **academic literature increasingly stigmatizes White presence** in urban life.
1381 +- Shows how **“diversity” is defined as the absence or silence of native populations.**
1382 +- Useful for exposing how **CRT and superdiversity discourse erase White communities' legitimacy.**
1380 1380  {{/expandable}}
1381 1381  
1382 1382  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1383 -1. Study how **local policies shape attitudes toward urban diversity**.
1384 -2. Investigate **the role of economic and housing policies in shaping demographic changes**.
1385 -3. Explore **how social networks influence perceptions of migration and diversity**.
1386 +1. Study the **psychological impact of demographic displacement** on native European populations.
1387 +2. Examine **rising crime and social fragmentation** in “superdiverse” zones.
1388 +3. Analyze how **housing, schooling, and local economies** are impacted by mass migration.
1386 1386  {{/expandable}}
1387 1387  
1388 1388  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1389 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]
1392 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_00420980231170057.pdf]]
1390 1390  {{/expandable}}
1391 1391  {{/expandable}}
1392 1392  
1396 +
1393 1393  = Media =
1394 1394  
1395 1395  {{expandable summary="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic"}}
... ... @@ -1594,107 +1594,99 @@
1594 1594  {{/expandable}}
1595 1595  
1596 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
1601 +Source: Journal of Advertising Research
1602 +Date of Publication: 2022
1603 +Author(s): Peter M. Lenk, Eric T. Bradlow, Randolph E. Bucklin, Sungeun (Clara) Kim
1600 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
1605 +DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2022-028
1606 +Subject Matter: Advertising Trends, Racial Representation, Cultural Shifts
1603 1603  
1604 1604  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1605 1605  
1606 -Study Scale:
1610 +**General Observations:**
1607 1607  
1608 -62 studies, 332 effect sizes, 10,186 participants (Black and White Americans).
1612 +Meta-analysis of 74 studies conducted between 1955 and 2020 on racial representation in advertising.
1609 1609  
1610 -Covers the period 1956–2022.
1614 +Sample included mostly White U.S. participants, with consistent tracking of their preferences.
1611 1611  
1612 -Cohens d Effect Sizes (Model-Free):
1616 +**Subgroup Analysis:**
1613 1613  
1614 -Black viewers: d = 0.50 → strong, consistent ingroup preference for Black models.
1618 +Found a steady increase in positive responses toward Black models/actors in ads by White viewers.
1615 1615  
1616 -White viewers: d = –0.08 overall; pre-2000: d = –0.16 (ingroup); post-2000: d = +0.02 (outgroup leaning).
1620 +Recent decades show equal or greater preference for Black faces compared to White ones.
1617 1617  
1618 -Regression Findings:
1622 +**Other Significant Data Points:**
1619 1619  
1620 -White viewers preference for Black models increases by ~0.0128 d/year since 1956 (p < 0.05).
1624 +Study frames this shift as a positive move toward diversity, ignoring implications for displaced White cultural representation.
1621 1621  
1622 -By 2022, White viewers showed positive directional preference for Black endorsers.
1623 -
1624 -Black viewer preferences remained stable across the 66 years.
1626 +No equivalent data was collected on Black or Hispanic attitudes toward White representation.
1625 1625  {{/expandable}}
1626 1626  
1627 1627  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1628 1628  
1629 -Primary Observations:
1631 +**Primary Observations:**
1630 1630  
1631 -Ingroup favoritism is evident: Black viewers consistently prefer Black endorsers.
1633 +White Americans have become increasingly receptive or favorable toward Black figures in advertising, even over timeframes of widespread cultural change.
1632 1632  
1633 -White viewers preferences have shifted significantly over time toward favoring Black endorsers.
1635 +These preferences held across product types, media formats, and ad genres.
1634 1634  
1635 -Temporal Trends:
1637 +**Subgroup Trends:**
1636 1636  
1637 -Turning point: Around 20022003, White viewers began showing a positive (though small) preference for Black endorsers.
1639 +Studies from the 1960s1980s showed preference for in-group racial representation, which has dropped sharply for Whites in recent decades.
1638 1638  
1639 -Moderator Effects:
1641 +The largest positive attitudinal shift occurred between 1995–2020, coinciding with major DEI and cultural programming trends.
1640 1640  
1641 -Low anti-Black prejudice and low White ethnic identification correlate with greater White preference for Black endorsers.
1643 +**Specific Case Analysis:**
1642 1642  
1643 -Economic hardship (e.g., high unemployment) slightly reduces White preference for Black endorsers.
1645 +The authors position this as “progress, but offer no critical reflection on the effects of displacing White imagery from national advertising narratives.
1644 1644  
1645 -Identification Model:
1646 -
1647 -Preference changes are stronger when outcomes measure identification with endorsers (e.g., similarity, attractiveness).
1647 +Completely omits consumer preference studies in countries outside the U.S., especially in more homogeneous nations.
1648 1648  {{/expandable}}
1649 1649  
1650 1650  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1651 1651  
1652 -Strengths of the Study:
1652 +**Strengths of the Study:**
1653 1653  
1654 -Longest-running meta-analysis on interracial preferences in advertising.
1654 +Large-scale dataset across decades provides a clear empirical view of long-term trends.
1655 1655  
1656 -Includes multilevel modeling and 21 meta-analytic covariates.
1656 +Useful as a benchmark of how White American preferences have evolved under sociocultural pressure.
1657 1657  
1658 -Accounts for both perceiver and societal context, and controls for publication bias.
1658 +**Limitations of the Study:**
1659 1659  
1660 -Limitations:
1660 +Fails to ask whether increasing diversity is consumer-driven or culturally imposed.
1661 1661  
1662 -Only examines Black and White racial dynamics—doesnt cover Hispanic, Asian, or multiracial groups.
1662 +Ignores the potential alienation or displacement of White cultural identity from mainstream advertising.
1663 1663  
1664 -72% of effect sizes are from student samples (not fully generalizable).
1664 +Assumes “diverse equals better without testing economic or emotional impact of those shifts.
1665 1665  
1666 -Social desirability bias may affect lab-based responses.
1666 +**Suggestions for Improvement:**
1667 1667  
1668 -Suggestions for Improvement:
1668 +Include non-White viewer reactions to all-White or traditional American imagery for balance.
1669 1669  
1670 -Include field experiments and more representative samples (age, class, ideology).
1670 +Test whether consumers notice racial proportions or experience fatigue from overcorrection.
1671 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.
1672 +Explore regional or class-based variance among White viewers, not just aggregate averages.
1675 1675  {{/expandable}}
1676 1676  
1677 1677  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1678 1678  
1679 -Provides empirical support for the dynamic shift in White American attitudes over time.
1677 +Demonstrates how White cultural imagery has been steadily replaced or downplayed in the public sphere.
1680 1680  
1681 -Directly informs discussions about media representation, consumer behavior, and racial identity.
1679 +Useful for showing how marketing professionals and researchers frame White displacement as “progress.
1682 1682  
1683 -Supports policy and commercial arguments for including more diverse models in advertising.
1681 +Empirically supports the decline of White in-group preference — possibly due to reeducation, guilt framing, or media saturation.
1684 1684  {{/expandable}}
1685 1685  
1686 1686  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1687 1687  
1688 -Expand analysis to Latino, Asian, and multiracial models in media.
1686 +Study how overrepresentation of minorities in advertising compares to actual demographics.
1689 1689  
1690 -Study real-world (non-lab) consumer reactions to racial diversity in advertising.
1688 +Examine whether consumers feel represented or alienated by identity-based marketing.
1691 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.
1690 +Investigate the psychological and cultural impact of long-term demographic displacement in national advertising.
1695 1695  {{/expandable}}
1696 1696  
1697 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]]
1694 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.2501_JAR-2022-028.pdf]]
1699 1699  {{/expandable}}
1700 1700  {{/expandable}}

XWiki AI Chat