0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

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

From version 111.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 03:15
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 107.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/04 07:06
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -22,8 +22,9 @@
22 22  
23 23  = Genetics =
24 24  
25 -{{expandable summary="
25 +{{expandable summary="
26 26  
27 +
27 27  Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History"}}
28 28  **Source:** *Nature*
29 29  **Date of Publication:** *2009*
... ... @@ -1051,8 +1051,9 @@
1051 1051  {{/expandable}}
1052 1052  {{/expandable}}
1053 1053  
1054 -{{expandable summary="
1055 +{{expandable summary="
1055 1055  
1057 +
1056 1056  Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"}}
1057 1057  **Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
1058 1058  **Date of Publication:** *2014*
... ... @@ -1123,67 +1123,65 @@
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:** *Critical Race Theory, Sports Sociology, Anti-White Institutional Framing*
1128 +**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1129 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1130 +**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1131 +**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1132 +**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1133 +**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sports, Higher Education, Institutional Racism*
1132 1132  
1133 1133  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1134 1134  1. **General Observations:**
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 + - Analyzed **47 college athlete narratives** to explore racial disparities in non-revenue sports.
1138 + - Found three interrelated themes: **racial segregation, racial innocence, and racial protection**.
1137 1137  
1138 1138  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
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 + - **Predominantly white sports programs** reinforce racial hierarchies in college athletics.
1142 + - **Recruitment policies favor white athletes** from affluent, suburban backgrounds.
1141 1141  
1142 1142  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
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 + - White athletes are **socialized to remain unaware of racial privilege** in their athletic careers.
1146 + - Media and institutional narratives protect white athletes from discussions on race and systemic inequities.
1145 1145  {{/expandable}}
1146 1146  
1147 1147  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1148 1148  1. **Primary Observations:**
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 + - Colleges **actively recruit white athletes** from majority-white communities.
1152 + - Institutional policies **uphold whiteness** by failing to challenge racial biases in recruitment and team culture.
1151 1151  
1152 1152  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
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 + - **White athletes show limited awareness** of their racial advantage in sports.
1156 + - **Black athletes are overrepresented** in revenue-generating sports but underrepresented in non-revenue teams.
1155 1155  
1156 1156  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
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 + - Examines **how sports serve as a mechanism for maintaining racial privilege** in higher education.
1160 + - Discusses the **role of athletics in reinforcing systemic segregation and exclusion**.
1159 1159  {{/expandable}}
1160 1160  
1161 1161  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1162 1162  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
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 + - **Comprehensive qualitative analysis** of race in college sports.
1166 + - Examines **institutional conditions** that sustain racial disparities in athletics.
1165 1165  
1166 1166  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
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 + - Focuses primarily on **Division I non-revenue sports**, limiting generalizability to other divisions.
1170 + - Lacks extensive **quantitative data on racial demographics** in college athletics.
1170 1170  
1171 1171  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
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 + - Future research should **compare recruitment policies across different sports and divisions**.
1174 + - Investigate **how athletic scholarships contribute to racial inequities in higher education**.
1175 1175  {{/expandable}}
1176 1176  
1177 1177  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
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).
1178 +- Provides evidence of **systemic racial biases** in college sports recruitment.
1179 +- Highlights **how institutional policies protect whiteness** in non-revenue athletics.
1180 +- Supports research on **diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in sports and education**.
1181 1181  {{/expandable}}
1182 1182  
1183 1183  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
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**.
1184 +1. Investigate how **racial stereotypes influence college athlete recruitment**.
1185 +2. Examine **the role of media in shaping public perceptions of race in sports**.
1186 +3. Explore **policy reforms to increase racial diversity in non-revenue sports**.
1187 1187  {{/expandable}}
1188 1188  
1189 1189  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
... ... @@ -1191,7 +1191,6 @@
1191 1191  {{/expandable}}
1192 1192  {{/expandable}}
1193 1193  
1194 -
1195 1195  {{expandable summary="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
1196 1196  **Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1197 1197  **Date of Publication:** *2016*
... ... @@ -1391,7 +1391,6 @@
1391 1391  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1392 1392  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]
1393 1393  {{/expandable}}
1394 -{{/expandable}}
1395 1395  
1396 1396  = Media =
1397 1397  
... ... @@ -1595,109 +1595,4 @@
1595 1595  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]
1596 1596  {{/expandable}}
1597 1597  {{/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.
1628 1628  {{/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
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2.1 MB
Content