Wiki source code of Studies: Media
Show last authors
author | version | line-number | content |
---|---|---|---|
1 | = Media = | ||
2 | |||
3 | {{expandable summary="Study: Interracial Couples in Ads: Do Consumers' Gender and Racial Differences Affect Their Reactions?"}} | ||
4 | **Source:** *Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising* | ||
5 | **Date of Publication:** *2018* | ||
6 | **Author(s):** *Subodh Bhat, Susan Myers, Marla Royne* | ||
7 | **Title:** *"Interracial Couples in Ads: Do Consumers' Gender and Racial Differences Affect Their Reactions?"* | ||
8 | **DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2018.1428249](https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2018.1428249) | ||
9 | **Subject Matter:** *Advertising, Interracial Relationships, Consumer Psychology* | ||
10 | |||
11 | {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} | ||
12 | 1. **General Observations:** | ||
13 | - Participants reacted more negatively to ads featuring Black-White interracial couples than to ads with same-race couples. | ||
14 | - Ads with interracial couples caused **significantly more negative emotions** (Mean = 2.49) compared to same-race ads (Mean = 2.03). | ||
15 | |||
16 | 2. **Subgroup Analysis:** | ||
17 | - No significant differences were found between **Black vs. White participants** or **male vs. female participants** in their reactions. | ||
18 | - Both racial groups and genders showed the same negative emotional responses to interracial ads. | ||
19 | |||
20 | 3. **Other Significant Data Points:** | ||
21 | - The average attitude toward the ad (Aad) was lower for interracial ads (Mean = 3.48) compared to same-race ads (Mean = 3.92). | ||
22 | - The average attitude toward the brand (Abrand) was also lower for interracial ads (Mean = 2.93) compared to same-race ads (Mean = 3.29). | ||
23 | {{/expandable}} | ||
24 | |||
25 | {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} | ||
26 | 1. **Primary Observations:** | ||
27 | - Interracial couples in ads generated **more negative emotions** and less favorable evaluations of both the ad and the brand. | ||
28 | - This effect was **independent of the participant’s race or gender.** | ||
29 | |||
30 | 2. **Subgroup Trends:** | ||
31 | - Although previous studies suggested that women or Whites might react more negatively, this study found **no statistically significant gender or race differences.** | ||
32 | |||
33 | 3. **Specific Case Analysis:** | ||
34 | - Negative emotional reactions included disgust, anger, irritation, contempt, and worry. | ||
35 | - The study used a controlled, fictional coffee brand ad to isolate racial dynamics without brand bias. | ||
36 | {{/expandable}} | ||
37 | |||
38 | {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} | ||
39 | 1. **Strengths of the Study:** | ||
40 | - Rigorous controlled experiment with random assignment. | ||
41 | - Solid statistical reliability (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.87 for all scales). | ||
42 | |||
43 | 2. **Limitations of the Study:** | ||
44 | - Student-only sample, which limits generalizability to the broader population. | ||
45 | - Only tested Black-White couples; other interracial pairings were not examined. | ||
46 | - Relied on self-reported measures without testing implicit bias. | ||
47 | |||
48 | 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** | ||
49 | - Future research should explore a wider range of racial pairings (e.g., Asian-White, Hispanic-White). | ||
50 | - Testing should include diverse age groups and real consumer markets. | ||
51 | - Implicit bias testing should be incorporated to capture subconscious reactions. | ||
52 | {{/expandable}} | ||
53 | |||
54 | {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} | ||
55 | - This study provides quantitative confirmation that **interracial romantic pairings in media still face significant consumer resistance,** even among younger generations and across racial lines. | ||
56 | - It supports the critique that modern media’s push for interracial depictions may not align with audience preferences, despite corporate DEI trends. | ||
57 | - The study shows that backlash to interracial representation is measurable, not just anecdotal. | ||
58 | {{/expandable}} | ||
59 | |||
60 | {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} | ||
61 | 1. Investigate **longitudinal trends** to see if resistance to interracial ads has decreased since 2018. | ||
62 | 2. Explore **differences by racial pairing types** (e.g., Asian-White vs. Black-White). | ||
63 | 3. Examine **implicit bias** alongside explicit attitudes to uncover potential hidden consumer prejudices. | ||
64 | {{/expandable}} | ||
65 | |||
66 | {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} | ||
67 | [[Download Full Study>>attach:bhat2018.pdf]] | ||
68 | {{/expandable}} | ||
69 | {{/expandable}} | ||
70 | |||
71 | {{expandable summary=" | ||
72 | |||
73 | |||
74 | Study: White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years"}} | ||
75 | Source: Journal of Advertising Research | ||
76 | Date of Publication: 2022 | ||
77 | Author(s): Peter M. Lenk, Eric T. Bradlow, Randolph E. Bucklin, Sungeun (Clara) Kim | ||
78 | Title: "White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years: A Meta-Analysis" | ||
79 | DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2022-028 | ||
80 | Subject Matter: Advertising Trends, Racial Representation, Cultural Shifts | ||
81 | |||
82 | {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} | ||
83 | **General Observations:** | ||
84 | |||
85 | Meta-analysis of 74 studies conducted between 1955 and 2020 on racial representation in advertising. | ||
86 | |||
87 | Sample included mostly White U.S. participants, with consistent tracking of their preferences. | ||
88 | |||
89 | **Subgroup Analysis:** | ||
90 | |||
91 | Found a steady increase in positive responses toward Black models/actors in ads by White viewers. | ||
92 | |||
93 | Recent decades show equal or greater preference for Black faces compared to White ones. | ||
94 | |||
95 | **Other Significant Data Points:** | ||
96 | |||
97 | Study frames this shift as a positive move toward diversity, ignoring implications for displaced White cultural representation. | ||
98 | |||
99 | No equivalent data was collected on Black or Hispanic attitudes toward White representation. | ||
100 | {{/expandable}} | ||
101 | |||
102 | {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} | ||
103 | **Primary Observations:** | ||
104 | |||
105 | White Americans have become increasingly receptive or favorable toward Black figures in advertising, even over timeframes of widespread cultural change. | ||
106 | |||
107 | These preferences held across product types, media formats, and ad genres. | ||
108 | |||
109 | **Subgroup Trends:** | ||
110 | |||
111 | Studies from the 1960s–1980s showed preference for in-group racial representation, which has dropped sharply for Whites in recent decades. | ||
112 | |||
113 | The largest positive attitudinal shift occurred between 1995–2020, coinciding with major DEI and cultural programming trends. | ||
114 | |||
115 | **Specific Case Analysis:** | ||
116 | |||
117 | The authors position this as “progress,” but offer no critical reflection on the effects of displacing White imagery from national advertising narratives. | ||
118 | |||
119 | Completely omits consumer preference studies in countries outside the U.S., especially in more homogeneous nations. | ||
120 | {{/expandable}} | ||
121 | |||
122 | {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} | ||
123 | **Strengths of the Study:** | ||
124 | |||
125 | Large-scale dataset across decades provides a clear empirical view of long-term trends. | ||
126 | |||
127 | Useful as a benchmark of how White American preferences have evolved under sociocultural pressure. | ||
128 | |||
129 | **Limitations of the Study:** | ||
130 | |||
131 | Fails to ask whether increasing diversity is consumer-driven or culturally imposed. | ||
132 | |||
133 | Ignores the potential alienation or displacement of White cultural identity from mainstream advertising. | ||
134 | |||
135 | Assumes “diverse equals better” without testing economic or emotional impact of those shifts. | ||
136 | |||
137 | **Suggestions for Improvement:** | ||
138 | |||
139 | Include non-White viewer reactions to all-White or traditional American imagery for balance. | ||
140 | |||
141 | Test whether consumers notice racial proportions or experience fatigue from overcorrection. | ||
142 | |||
143 | Explore regional or class-based variance among White viewers, not just aggregate averages. | ||
144 | {{/expandable}} | ||
145 | |||
146 | {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} | ||
147 | Demonstrates how White cultural imagery has been steadily replaced or downplayed in the public sphere. | ||
148 | |||
149 | Useful for showing how marketing professionals and researchers frame White displacement as “progress.” | ||
150 | |||
151 | Empirically supports the decline of White in-group preference — possibly due to reeducation, guilt framing, or media saturation. | ||
152 | {{/expandable}} | ||
153 | |||
154 | {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} | ||
155 | Study how overrepresentation of minorities in advertising compares to actual demographics. | ||
156 | |||
157 | Examine whether consumers feel represented or alienated by identity-based marketing. | ||
158 | |||
159 | Investigate the psychological and cultural impact of long-term demographic displacement in national advertising. | ||
160 | {{/expandable}} | ||
161 | |||
162 | {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} | ||
163 | [[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]] | ||
164 | {{/expandable}} | ||
165 | {{/expandable}} | ||
166 | |||
167 | {{expandable summary="Study: Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"}} | ||
168 | **Source:** *Journal of Communication* | ||
169 | **Date of Publication:** *2020* | ||
170 | **Author(s):** *John A. Banas, Lauren L. Miller, David A. Braddock, Sun Kyong Lee* | ||
171 | **Title:** *"Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"* | ||
172 | **DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqz032](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz032) | ||
173 | **Subject Matter:** *Media Psychology, Prejudice Reduction, Intergroup Relations* | ||
174 | |||
175 | {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} | ||
176 | 1. **General Observations:** | ||
177 | - Aggregated **71 studies involving 27,000+ participants**. | ||
178 | - Focused on how **media portrayals of out-groups (primarily minorities)** affect attitudes among dominant in-groups (i.e., Whites). | ||
179 | |||
180 | 2. **Subgroup Analysis:** | ||
181 | - **Fictional entertainment** had stronger effects than news. | ||
182 | - **Positive portrayals of minorities** correlated with significant reductions in “prejudice”. | ||
183 | |||
184 | 3. **Other Significant Data Points:** | ||
185 | - Effects were stronger when minority characters were portrayed as **warm, competent, and morally relatable**. | ||
186 | - Contact was more effective when it mimicked **face-to-face friendship narratives**. | ||
187 | {{/expandable}} | ||
188 | |||
189 | {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} | ||
190 | 1. **Primary Observations:** | ||
191 | - Media is a **powerful tool for shaping racial attitudes**, capable of reducing “prejudice” without real-world contact. | ||
192 | - **Repeated exposure** to positive portrayals of minorities led to increased acceptance and reduced negative bias. | ||
193 | |||
194 | 2. **Subgroup Trends:** | ||
195 | - **White participants** were the primary targets of reconditioning. | ||
196 | - Minority participants were not studied in terms of **prejudice against Whites**. | ||
197 | |||
198 | 3. **Specific Case Analysis:** | ||
199 | - “Parasocial” relationships with minority characters (TV/movie exposure) had comparable psychological effects to actual friendships. | ||
200 | - Media framing functioned as a **top-down mechanism for social engineering**, not just passive reflection of society. | ||
201 | {{/expandable}} | ||
202 | |||
203 | {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} | ||
204 | 1. **Strengths of the Study:** | ||
205 | - High-quality quantitative meta-analysis with clear design and robust statistical handling. | ||
206 | - Acknowledges **media’s ability to alter long-held social beliefs** without physical contact. | ||
207 | |||
208 | 2. **Limitations of the Study:** | ||
209 | - Only defines “prejudice” as **negative attitudes from Whites toward minorities** — no exploration of anti-White media narratives or bias. | ||
210 | - Ignores the effects of **overexposure to minority portrayals** on cultural alienation or backlash. | ||
211 | - Assumes **assimilation into DEI norms is inherently positive**, and any reluctance to accept them is “prejudice”. | ||
212 | |||
213 | 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** | ||
214 | - Study reciprocal dynamics — how **minority media portrayals impact attitudes toward Whites**. | ||
215 | - Investigate whether constant valorization of minorities leads to **resentment, guilt, or political disengagement** among White viewers. | ||
216 | - Analyze **media saturation effects**, especially in multicultural propaganda and corporate DEI messaging. | ||
217 | {{/expandable}} | ||
218 | |||
219 | {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} | ||
220 | - Provides **direct evidence** that media is being used to **reshape racial attitudes** through emotional, parasocial contact. | ||
221 | - Reinforces concern that **“tolerance” is engineered via asymmetric emotional exposure**, not organic consensus. | ||
222 | - Useful for documenting how **Whiteness is often treated as a bias to be corrected**, not a culture to be respected. | ||
223 | {{/expandable}} | ||
224 | |||
225 | {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} | ||
226 | 1. Investigate **reverse parasocial effects** — how negative portrayals of White men affect self-perception and mental health. | ||
227 | 2. Study how **mass entertainment normalizes demographic shifts** and silences native concerns. | ||
228 | 3. Compare effects of **Western vs. non-Western media systems** in promoting diversity narratives. | ||
229 | {{/expandable}} | ||
230 | |||
231 | {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} | ||
232 | [[Download Full Study>>attach:Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf]] | ||
233 | {{/expandable}} | ||
234 | {{/expandable}} | ||
235 | |||
236 | {{expandable summary=" | ||
237 | |||
238 | Study: Cultural Voyeurism – A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"}} | ||
239 | **Source:** *Journal of Communication* | ||
240 | **Date of Publication:** *2018* | ||
241 | **Author(s):** *Osei Appiah* | ||
242 | **Title:** *"Cultural Voyeurism: A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"* | ||
243 | **DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021) | ||
244 | **Subject Matter:** *Intergroup contact, racial stereotypes, media, identity formation* | ||
245 | |||
246 | {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} | ||
247 | 1. **No empirical dataset** — this is a theoretical framework paper, not a quantitative study. | ||
248 | 2. **Heavily cites prior empirical work**, including: | ||
249 | - Czopp & Monteith (2006) on “complimentary stereotypes” | ||
250 | - Armstrong et al. (1992), Entman & Rojecki (2000) on media distortion of race | ||
251 | - Pettigrew et al. (2011) on intergroup contact | ||
252 | |||
253 | 3. **Statistical implications:** Repeatedly emphasizes the role of media in shaping racial beliefs when direct interracial contact is absent. | ||
254 | {{/expandable}} | ||
255 | |||
256 | {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} | ||
257 | 1. **Primary Observations:** | ||
258 | - Defines *cultural voyeurism* as the process of using media to observe and learn about other racial/ethnic groups. | ||
259 | - Claims it can both reinforce stereotypes and reduce prejudice depending on context. | ||
260 | - Suggests that Whites’ fascination with Black culture (e.g., hip-hop, athleticism) is a driver of empathy and improved race relations. | ||
261 | |||
262 | 2. **Subgroup Trends:** | ||
263 | - White youth are singled out as cultural voyeurs increasingly emulating Black identity for social cachet (“coolness”). | ||
264 | - Positive media portrayals of Blacks (e.g., in entertainment) said to reduce racial bias. | ||
265 | |||
266 | 3. **Specific Case Analysis:** | ||
267 | - No case study provided, but mentions “Duck Dynasty” and “hip-hop culture” as stereotyped White/Black identity constructs respectively. | ||
268 | {{/expandable}} | ||
269 | |||
270 | {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} | ||
271 | 1. **Strengths of the Study:** | ||
272 | - Recognizes media’s dual role in shaping intergroup perception. | ||
273 | - Accurately captures the obsession with racial “coolness” as a social phenomenon. | ||
274 | |||
275 | 2. **Limitations of the Study:** | ||
276 | - Frames White identification with Black culture as inherently progressive, ignoring issues of **anti-White displacement**. | ||
277 | - Treats *positive stereotypes of minorities* (e.g., athleticism, musicality) as meaningful substitutes for structural reality. | ||
278 | - Lacks any meaningful inquiry into *reverse cultural voyeurism* (i.e., non-Whites voyeuristically consuming and appropriating White identity or values). | ||
279 | |||
280 | 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** | ||
281 | - Should confront whether “cultural voyeurism” ultimately erodes group boundaries and majority cultural integrity. | ||
282 | - Needs empirical validation of claims. | ||
283 | - Avoids uncomfortable realities about how White identity is increasingly stigmatized in media — which undermines genuine empathy or parity. | ||
284 | {{/expandable}} | ||
285 | |||
286 | {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} | ||
287 | - Helps explain how **media conditioning** primes young Whites to *admire, emulate, and eventually submit* to Black cultural dominance. | ||
288 | - Directly supports the narrative that **pro-White identity is systematically delegitimized**, while pro-Black identity is commodified and glamorized — then sold back to White youth. | ||
289 | - Useful in chapters/sections covering cultural appropriation *in reverse* — not by Whites, but **of Whiteness** by outsiders for critique and exploitation. | ||
290 | {{/expandable}} | ||
291 | |||
292 | {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} | ||
293 | 1. Are there longitudinal studies showing cultural voyeurism weakening in-group preference among Whites? | ||
294 | 2. Does this phenomenon correspond to decreased fertility, civic participation, or political alignment with group interest? | ||
295 | 3. How do non-Western societies handle voyeuristic consumption of majority culture — do they permit or punish it? | ||
296 | {{/expandable}} | ||
297 | |||
298 | {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} | ||
299 | [[Download Full Study>>attach:Cultural Voyeurism A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Intera.pdf]] | ||
300 | {{/expandable}} | ||
301 | {{/expandable}} |