Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Gender and Racial Diversity in Commercial Brands' Advertising Images on Social Media

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Automated scan of 85,957 brand ads finds White models dominate and same-race pairings are favored.

desk verdict A solid descriptive extension of the authors' own 2018 study, with a genuinely new permutation-based result on same-race cross-sex pairings, but every headline number depends on unvalidated Face++ labels. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01352 v1 pith:QRWDMUZ5 submitted 2019-08-04 cs.CY

Jisun An , Haewoon Kwak This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CY
keywords genderdiversityracialadvertisingimagessocialmediafacedetectionFace++cross-sexinteractionssmiling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to show that a fully automated image-analysis pipeline can measure gender and racial diversity in online brand advertising, and that applying it to 85,957 Instagram and Facebook images from 73 top U.S.-origin consumer brands reveals systematic patterns: White models dominate (74.2% of labeled faces on Instagram, 79.3% on Facebook), Black models are underrepresented relative to the U.S. population, Asian models are overrepresented, and after correcting for base rates with a permutation null model, same-race male–female pairs are favored in cross-sex interactions. It also reports that female models smile significantly more than male models. The authors care because repeated exposure to mediated images can shape perceptions of demographic groups, and previous monitoring has relied on slow manual content analysis. If the approach works, diversity in online ads could be tracked cheaply and near real time.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a fully automated pipeline built on the commercial face-analysis service Face++, which detects faces and infers gender (Female or Male), race (White, Asian, or Black), and a smile score from 0 to 100; images with confidence below 0.7 are discarded. On top of these labels, the paper defines three computable metrics: appearance frequency for each demographic group, pair frequencies for cross-sex interactions (images containing at least one male and one female model), and smile-level distributions. The load-bearing statistical object is the permutation null model used for cross-sex pairs: it shuffles models across images while keeping the number of male and female models in every image fixed, then computes 1,000 randomized replicates to produce a z-score for each of the nine race-by-gender pairs. That z-score is what separates a pair appearing often because those models appear often from a pair appearing more often than the base rates would predict.

What would settle it

Take a stratified random sample of the 85,957 images, have independent human annotators label gender and race for each detected face, and compare those labels with Face++'s output; if human labels put Black female models near their 14.4% population share while Face++ put them near 2.9%, or if human-labeled smile scores show no female–male gap, the paper's headline numbers would not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the demographic imbalances long documented in TV and print advertising reappear in social media advertising, and that at least one imbalance—same-race pairing in cross-sex interactions—is not just a byproduct of White models being more numerous. On the raw counts, White female–White male pairs dominate cross-sex ads (60.3% of pairs on Instagram, 68.9% on Facebook). But the paper's permutation null model, which shuffles models across images while preserving the number of men and women in each image, shows that same-race pairs of every race have positive median z-scores on both platforms, while interracial pairs involving Whites have negative z-scores. In other words, after accounting for how often each group appears, advertisers still pair models of the same race more often than chance. The paper also claims that Black female models are rare (2.9% of Instagram models, 3.6% on Facebook) and that female models smile more than male models with a large effect size.

Load-bearing premise

If Face++'s gender, race, and smile labels are systematically wrong for these advertising images—especially for darker-skinned women—every reported proportion and pairing preference could be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Brand diversity can be tracked continuously and cheaply: the same pipeline can be rerun as new images are posted, turning diversity monitoring into a near-real-time audit.
  • The specific ratios (White 74.2% on Instagram and 79.3% on Facebook; Black 8.9% and 7.4% versus a normalized U.S. population share of 14.4%) give advertisers and watchdogs a concrete, reproducible baseline to measure against.
  • Because same-race pairing survives the permutation correction, social media ads join TV and print as a site where interracial romantic and family cues are underused.
  • The large smile gap between female and male models (Cohen's d is about 1.05) indicates that gendered display norms persist in online brand imagery, not just in traditional media.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension is to rerun the same pair analysis on images with exactly two models, where the romantic or family cue is strongest; the paper pools all pairs, so multi-model images may dilute or exaggerate the same-race preference.
  • The roughly threefold overrepresentation of Asian models could be tested against regional marketing motives by comparing accounts targeting U.S. audiences with those targeting Asia; the paper uses only primary accounts of U.S.-origin brands.
  • The pipeline's confidence threshold could itself be a source of bias: if Face++ drops low-confidence faces unevenly across demographic groups, the reported proportions would be distorted, and that is checkable by comparing the demographic mix of accepted and rejected faces.
  • An automated watchdog built on this approach could add other visual attributes—age, body type, clothing, or the role a model plays—to catch stereotyped portrayals that simple headcount ratios miss; the authors note the need for such nuance in their limitations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an automated pipeline for measuring gender and racial diversity in advertising images on social media, and demonstrates it on 85,957 images posted by 73 U.S.-originated B2C brands on Instagram and Facebook. Using Face++ for face detection and demographic inference, the authors report the frequencies of six inferred demographic groups (Asian/Black/White by female/male), brand-level gender and racial diversity indices, an analysis of cross-sex interaction pairs with a permutation null model, and an analysis of smile levels. The headline findings are that White models dominate (74.2% of labeled faces on Instagram and 79.3% on Facebook), Black female models appear at only 2.9% and 3.6% of labeled faces on the two platforms, Black models are underrepresented relative to the U.S. Census while Asian models are overrepresented, same-race male-female pairs are preferred in cross-sex interactions once base rates are accounted for, and female models smile more than male models. The paper frames the contribution as a first step toward a fully automated watchdog for diversity in online advertising.

Significance. If the measurement pipeline were validated for this corpus, the paper would provide a valuable large-scale extension of content-analytic studies of advertising from TV and print to social media, with three concrete, computable diversity metrics and a permutation-based null model for pair preferences. The authors are careful to use typewriter font to denote Face++-inferred groups, and they acknowledge in Section 7 that the face-detection tool may have inherent biases. However, the validity of every headline number in Sections 4-6 rests on the accuracy of Face++ for this specific set of advertising images, and that accuracy is not established. The census comparison in Section 4 also conflates Face++'s three race categories with U.S. Census categories, which is a category-mismatch problem rather than a mere labeling-error problem. The contribution is therefore best seen as a promising methodological demonstration whose quantitative conclusions require additional validation and sensitivity analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3; Sections 4-6] The central descriptive claims—White dominance, Black female underrepresentation at 2.9-3.6%, the race-census comparison, the same-race z-scores in Fig. 4(b), and the smile-level results—are all statements about Face++ outputs, yet Face++ is never validated on this corpus. The only accuracy evidence cited is the authors' own prior study (ref [27]) on different data, and the manuscript itself cites Gender Shades (ref [13]) which documents systematic error disparities for darker-skinned women. In addition, the confidence threshold of 0.7 in Section 3 may exclude faces non-uniformly by skin tone, gender, or age, introducing selection bias before any label error is considered. The Section 7 acknowledgement that 'the use of Face detection ... may have inherent biases' is not quantified or addressed empirically. I request a stratified validation sample (by platform, inferred group, and confidence score) with human labels, reported as confusion matrices, plus a sensitivity analysis showing how the headline proportions and z-scores change under plausible misclassification rates. Without this, the load-bearing quantitative claims are not supported.
  2. [Section 4, 'Compared with the actual population' paragraph] The comparison of Face++ race proportions to the 2010 U.S. Census is not valid as stated. Face++ outputs exactly three race categories (White, Asian, Black), so Hispanic, Middle Eastern, and multiracial models must be forced into one of these or dropped, while the Census treats Hispanic as an ethnicity that can co-occur with any race. The normalized census percentages (5.6% Asian, 14.4% Black, 80% White) are therefore not a proper baseline for 'overrepresented' or 'underrepresented' claims. For example, a Hispanic model may be labeled White by Face++, inflating White counts, and the Census 'White alone' population includes Hispanic Whites. The claims should be reframed as relative to a baseline defined by the same three categories, or the authors should validate a subset with human labels into those exact three categories and compare to that. This directly affects RQ1 and the conclusion that Black models are underrepresented relative to the U.S. population.
  3. [Section 5, 'To compute the corrected preference' paragraph] The permutation null model is conceptually reasonable, but the manuscript does not specify whether the shuffle is performed separately within each platform and brand, nor how pairs are counted in the null when an image contains more than two models. More importantly, the z-score formula assumes approximate normality of the null distribution of pair counts; for rare pairs such as A/F-B/M, the distribution will be highly skewed and possibly zero-inflated, making the z-score and its boxplots in Fig. 4(b) hard to interpret. The claim that same-race pairs are preferred relies on these z-scores, so I ask the authors to provide details of the shuffling procedure, report null distributions or exact p-values/confidence intervals for rare pairs, and show that the same-race preference is robust to alternative null models (e.g., preserving race as well as gender composition per image).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and formatting issues: 'ANOV A' should be 'ANOVA'; in Section 6 '55.6 ad.nd 42.8' should be '55.6 and 42.8'; the subscript formatting for N^b_Female and N^b_Male in Section 4 is broken.
  2. [Figure 2] Figure 2 is extremely dense, with over 70 brand labels and two connected markers per brand; the labels overlap substantially. A zoomable version or a faceted plot would improve readability.
  3. [Section 5, Figure 3 caption] The notation 'A/', 'B/', 'W/' is only explained in the figure caption; consider defining it in the main text at first use.
  4. [Section 6, statistical tests] The t-test and Kruskal-Wallis tests treat faces as independent units, but faces are clustered within images and brands. This likely inflates significance; a mixed-effects model or cluster-robust standard errors would be more appropriate.
  5. [Section 7, limitations] The paper does not release the image-level data or code, which limits reproducibility of the pipeline. At minimum, a detailed protocol and the list of brand account handles should be provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: all headline numbers are direct Face++ labels analyzed with a permutation null model; the only self-citation is a validation study that is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical measurement study, not a derivation. Every headline proportion in Sections 4-6 is a direct count or mean of Face++ outputs, and the paper is explicit about this by using typewriter font to indicate 'inferred by Face++' (Section 3). The same-race preference in Section 5 is computed by comparing observed pair counts to a permutation null model that shuffles model placement while preserving the number of models of each gender per image; this is a standard non-parametric test and is not fitted to the data, so no prediction reduces to an input by construction. The only self-citation is Section 3's reliance on the authors' own validation study [27] to justify Face++ accuracy. However, the same sentence also cites non-overlapping prior work [59] and the external Face++ service, and the limitation section explicitly concedes 'inherent biases' [13]. Thus the self-citation is a minor support for the measurement instrument, not a load-bearing derivation that forces the results. The absence of corpus-specific stratified validation of Face++ is a correctness risk, not circularity; if labels are systematically wrong, the headline numbers would describe Face++ outputs rather than the people in the ads, but the paper itself flags this. Score 2 reflects the minor self-citation, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not fit parameters; it computes descriptive statistics and permutation-based z-scores. The load-bearing inputs are the chosen data thresholds, the definition of advertising images, the US Census baseline, the permutation null model, and Face++ inference quality. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Face++ confidence threshold = 0.7
    Images with inferred faces below a confidence of 0.7 are discarded (Section 3). This threshold affects the face counts and thus all reported proportions.
  • Minimum images with faces per brand = 50
    Brands with fewer than 50 face-containing images are excluded (Section 3), filtering the brand set and shaping the dataset composition.
  • Smile level bin count = 20
    Smiling levels are quantized into 20 bins for Figure 6 (Section 6); this is a visualization choice and not load-bearing for the main claims.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn post-hoc tests are valid for comparing demographic group proportions and smile levels across brands.
    These tests are used in Sections 4, 5, and 6 to claim significant differences; they assume independent samples and appropriate group definitions.
  • domain assumption Images posted by official brand accounts on Instagram and Facebook are advertising images.
    Section 3 defines advertising images this way; the entire dataset is built on this definition.
  • domain assumption US Census 2010 race proportions are the appropriate demographic baseline.
    Section 4 compares ad appearances to the US population; brands are US-origin but advertise globally, so the baseline is debatable.
  • ad hoc to paper The permutation null model that shuffles models while preserving only the number of models of each gender in every image gives the correct 'by chance' baseline for cross-sex interactions.
    Section 5 builds z-scores from this null model; it does not preserve race counts per image, brand structure, or image-level covariates, which could bias the expected pair frequencies.
  • domain assumption Face++ smile scores measure the intended smiling intensity.
    Smile analysis (Section 6) uses Face++ smile levels directly; no independent validation on this dataset is offered.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gender and Racial Diversity in Commercial Brands' Advertising Images on Social Media." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QRWDMUZ5

@misc{pith2026190801352,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gender and Racial Diversity in Commercial Brands' Advertising Images on Social Media},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QRWDMUZ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01352}
}
read the original abstract

Gender and racial diversity in the mediated images from the media shape our perception of different demographic groups. In this work, we investigate gender and racial diversity of 85,957 advertising images shared by the 73 top international brands on Instagram and Facebook. We hope that our analyses give guidelines on how to build a fully automated watchdog for gender and racial diversity in online advertisements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01352 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Proportions of appearances of each demographic group in advertising images [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Proportion of each demographic group in cross-sex interactions, same-sex interaction, or by the self. A/, B/, and W/ stand for Asian, Black, and White, and /F and /M stand for Female and Male, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Proportions of each pair of different demographic groups in cross-sex interactions (b) Z-score of demographic group pairs in cross-sex interactions. Outliers are omitted for clarity Then, how is the bias toward the Whites presented at the level of the pairs in cros…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Smiling level of each demographic group [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Proportions of each race in different smiling levels (Top: Female, Bottom: Male) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    In: ICWSM (2018)

    Jung, S., An, J., Kwak, H., Salminen, J., Jansen, B.: Assessing the accuracy of four popular face recognition tools for inferring gender, age, and race. In: ICWSM (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [13]

    In: Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency

    Buolamwini, J., Gebru, T.: Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In: Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency. pp. 77–91 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [1]

    https://www.interbrand.com/best-brands/ best-global-brands/2016/, accessed: 2019-04-16

    Best global brands 2016. https://www.interbrand.com/best-brands/ best-global-brands/2016/, accessed: 2019-04-16

    work page 2016

  4. [2]

    https://www.faceplusplus.com, accessed: 2019-04-16

    Face++. https://www.faceplusplus.com, accessed: 2019-04-16

    work page 2019

  5. [3]

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/28/ german-diy-chain-hornbach-racist-advert-provokes-anger-south-korea , accessed: 2019-04-16

    German diy chain’s ‘racist’ advert provokes anger in south ko- rea. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/28/ german-diy-chain-hornbach-racist-advert-provokes-anger-south-korea , accessed: 2019-04-16

    work page 2019

  6. [4]

    https://brandirectory.com/ rankings/global-500-2016, accessed: 2019-04-16

    Global 500 2016 — rankings — brandirectory. https://brandirectory.com/ rankings/global-500-2016, accessed: 2019-04-16

    work page 2016

  7. [5]

    https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/ briefs/c2010br-14.pdf, accessed: 2019-04-16

    Households and families: 2010. https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/ briefs/c2010br-14.pdf, accessed: 2019-04-16

    work page 2010

  8. [6]

    #yankees: Demographics and hashtag use on Twitter

    An, J., Weber, I.: #greysanatomy vs. #yankees: Demographics and hashtag use on Twitter. In: ICWSM (2016), https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM16/ paper/view/13021

    work page 2016

Show all 60 references
  1. [7]

    In: International Conference on Social Informatics

    An, J., Weber, I.: Diversity in online advertising: A case study of 69 brands on social media. In: International Conference on Social Informatics. pp. 38–53. Springer (2018)

    2018

  2. [8]

    Journal of Advertising 35(1), 83–104 (2006)

    Bailey, A.A.: A year in the life of the african-american male in advertising: A content anal- ysis. Journal of Advertising 35(1), 83–104 (2006)

    2006

  3. [9]

    Handbook of socialization theory and research 213, 262 (1969)

    Bandura, A.: Social-learning theory of identificatory processes. Handbook of socialization theory and research 213, 262 (1969)

    1969

  4. [10]

    Journal of Consumer Marketing 32(6), 459–469 (2015)

    Berg, H., S ¨oderlund, M., Lindstr ¨om, A.: Spreading joy: examining the effects of smiling models on consumer joy and attitudes. Journal of Consumer Marketing 32(6), 459–469 (2015)

    2015

  5. [11]

    In: Advances in neural information processing systems

    Bolukbasi, T., Chang, K.W., Zou, J.Y ., Saligrama, V ., Kalai, A.T.: Man is to computer pro- grammer as woman is to homemaker? debiasing word embeddings. In: Advances in neural information processing systems. pp. 4349–4357 (2016)

    2016

  6. [12]

    Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 74(1), 134–146 (1997)

    Bowen, L., Schmid, J.: Minority presence and portrayal in mainstream magazine advertising: An update. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 74(1), 134–146 (1997)

    1997

  7. [14]

    Journal of Advertising Research 14(3), 19–22 (1974)

    Choudhury, P.K., Schmid, L.S.: Black models in advertising to blacks. Journal of Advertising Research 14(3), 19–22 (1974)

    1974

  8. [15]

    Journal of Social Philosophy 35(2), 165–187 (2004)

    Cohen-Eliya, M., Hammer, Y .: Advertisements, stereotypes, and freedom of expression. Journal of Social Philosophy 35(2), 165–187 (2004)

    2004

  9. [16]

    Sex roles 42(5), 363–389 (2000)

    Coltrane, S., Messineo, M.: The perpetuation of subtle prejudice: Race and gender imagery in 1990s television advertising. Sex roles 42(5), 363–389 (2000)

    2000

  10. [17]

    The Public Opinion Quarterly 33(4), 603–606 (1969)

    Cox, K.K.: Changes in stereotyping of negroes and whites in magazine advertisements. The Public Opinion Quarterly 33(4), 603–606 (1969)

    1969

  11. [18]

    Journal of Advertis- ing Research 26, 169–173 (1970)

    Dominick, J.R., Greenberg, B.S.: Three seasons of blacks on television. Journal of Advertis- ing Research 26, 169–173 (1970)

    1970

  12. [19]

    Environmental psychology and non- verbal behavior 1(1), 56–75 (1976)

    Ekman, P., Friesen, W.V .: Measuring facial movement. Environmental psychology and non- verbal behavior 1(1), 56–75 (1976)

    1976

  13. [20]

    Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 17(1), 75–86 (1995)

    Elliott, M.T.: Differences in the portrayal of blacks: A content analysis of general media versus culturally-targeted commercials. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 17(1), 75–86 (1995)

    1995

  14. [21]

    Media effects: Advances in theory and research2, 43–67 (2002) 14 Jisun An and Haewoon Kwak

    Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., Shanahan, J.: Growing up with televi- sion: Cultivation processes. Media effects: Advances in theory and research2, 43–67 (2002) 14 Jisun An and Haewoon Kwak

    2002

  15. [22]

    Psychology Press (2002)

    Goddard, A.: The language of advertising: written texts. Psychology Press (2002)

    2002

  16. [23]

    Journal of personality and social psychology 74(6), 1464 (1998)

    Greenwald, A.G., McGhee, D.E., Schwartz, J.L.: Measuring individual differences in im- plicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of personality and social psychology 74(6), 1464 (1998)

    1998

  17. [24]

    Business horizons 54(3), 265–273 (2011)

    Hanna, R., Rohm, A., Crittenden, V .L.: Were all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Business horizons 54(3), 265–273 (2011)

    2011

  18. [25]

    Univ of California Press (1997)

    Illouz, E.: Consuming the romantic utopia: Love and the cultural contradictions of capital- ism. Univ of California Press (1997)

    1997

  19. [26]

    Howard Journal of Communication 14(2), 97–112 (2003)

    Jacobs Henderson, J., Baldasty, G.J.: Race, advertising, and prime-time television. Howard Journal of Communication 14(2), 97–112 (2003)

    2003

  20. [28]

    Journal of personality and social psychology 55(6), 893 (1988)

    Katz, I., Hass, R.G.: Racial ambivalence and american value conflict: Correlational and prim- ing studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of personality and social psychology 55(6), 893 (1988)

    1988

  21. [29]

    In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Kay, M., Matuszek, C., Munson, S.A.: Unequal representation and gender stereotypes in image search results for occupations. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 3819–3828. ACM (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    Cen- gage Learning (2013)

    Knapp, M.L., Hall, J.A., Horgan, T.G.: Nonverbal communication in human interaction. Cen- gage Learning (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    In: ICWSM workshop on news and public opinion (NECO) (2016)

    Kwak, H., An, J.: Revealing the hidden patterns of news photos: Analysis of millions of news photos using gdelt and deep learning-based vision apis. In: ICWSM workshop on news and public opinion (NECO) (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    In: Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference on World Wide Web

    Kwak, H., An, J., Salminen, J., Jung, S.G., Jansen, B.J.: What we read, what we search: Media attention and public attention among 193 countries. In: Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference on World Wide Web. pp. 893–902. International World Wide Web Conferences Stee...

    2018

  25. [33]

    Psychological bulletin 129(2), 305 (2003)

    LaFrance, M., Hecht, M.A., Paluck, E.L.: The contingent smile: a meta-analysis of sex dif- ferences in smiling. Psychological bulletin 129(2), 305 (2003)

    2003

  26. [34]

    The Journal of Social Psychology117(1), 63–67 (1982)

    Lau, S.: The effect of smiling on person perception. The Journal of Social Psychology117(1), 63–67 (1982)

    1982

  27. [35]

    Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 82(3), 654–671 (2005)

    Lee, K.Y ., Joo, S.H.: The portrayal of asian americans in mainstream magazine ads: An update. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 82(3), 654–671 (2005)

    2005

  28. [36]

    Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 47(4), 638–647 (2003)

    Mastro, D.E., Stern, S.R.: Representations of race in television commercials: A content anal- ysis of prime-time advertising. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 47(4), 638–647 (2003)

    2003

  29. [37]

    Sport, Education and Society 8(1), 3–16 (2003)

    McCullick, B., Belcher, D., Hardin, B., Hardin, M.: Butches, bullies and buffoons: Images of physical education teachers in the movies. Sport, Education and Society 8(1), 3–16 (2003)

    2003

  30. [38]

    Visual Marketing: From Attention to Action

    McQuarrie, E.F.: Differentiating the pictorial element in advertising. Visual Marketing: From Attention to Action. New York: Erlbaum pp. 91–112 (2008)

    2008

  31. [39]

    Sex Roles 54(9-10), 659–673 (2006)

    Millard, J.E., Grant, P.R.: The stereotypes of black and white women in fashion magazine photographs: The pose of the model and the impression she creates. Sex Roles 54(9-10), 659–673 (2006)

    2006

  32. [40]

    Howard Journal of Commu- nication 14(4), 225–243 (2003)

    Paek, H.J., Shah, H.: Racial ideology, model minorities, and the” not-so-silent partner:” stereotyping of asian americans in us magazine advertising. Howard Journal of Commu- nication 14(4), 225–243 (2003)

    2003

  33. [41]

    Psychology of women quarterly 21(4), 627–644 (1997)

    Plous, S., Neptune, D.: Racial and gender biases in magazine advertising: A content-analytic study. Psychology of women quarterly 21(4), 627–644 (1997)

    1997

  34. [42]

    Science advances 3(12), eaao5834 (2017) Gender and Racial Diversity in Advertising Images on Social Media 15

    Powell, B., Schnabel, L., Apgar, L.: Denial of service to same-sex and interracial couples: Evidence from a national survey experiment. Science advances 3(12), eaao5834 (2017) Gender and Racial Diversity in Advertising Images on Social Media 15

    2017

  35. [43]

    twittersphere

    Reis, J.C., Kwak, H., An, J., Messias, J., Benevenuto, F.: Demographics of news sharing in the u.s. twittersphere. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on Hypertext and So- cial Media. pp. 195–204. HT ’17, ACM (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3078714.3078734, http://doi.a...

    2017

  36. [44]

    Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 29(1), 75–86 (2005)

    Richeson, J.A., Shelton, J.N.: Brief report: Thin slices of racial bias. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 29(1), 75–86 (2005)

    2005

  37. [45]

    Mass Communication & Society 10(1), 119–138 (2007)

    Rodgers, S., Kenix, L.J., Thorson, E.: Stereotypical portrayals of emotionality in news pho- tos. Mass Communication & Society 10(1), 119–138 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    Journal of business ethics 123(3), 421–436 (2014)

    Shabbir, H.A., Hyman, M.R., Reast, J., Palihawadana, D.: Deconstructing subtle racist im- agery in television ads. Journal of business ethics 123(3), 421–436 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    Public Opinion Quarterly pp

    Shuey, A.M., King, N., Griffith, B.: Stereotyping of negroes and whites: An analysis of magazine pictures. Public Opinion Quarterly pp. 281–287 (1953)

    1953

  40. [48]

    Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 34(3), 243–262 (1990)

    Skill, T., Wallace, S.: Family interactions on primetime television: A descriptive analysis of assertive power interactions. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 34(3), 243–262 (1990)

    1990

  41. [49]

    Cognition & Emotion 12(6), 755–782 (1998)

    Stenberg, G., Wiking, S., Dahl, M.: Judging words at face value: Interference in a word processing task reveals automatic processing of affective facial expressions. Cognition & Emotion 12(6), 755–782 (1998)

    1998

  42. [50]

    Stevenson, T.H.: A six-decade study of the portrayal of african americans in business print media: Trailing, mirroring, or shaping social change? Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 29(1), 1–14 (2007)

    2007

  43. [51]

    Industrial Marketing Management 43(5), 873–881 (2014)

    Swani, K., Brown, B.P., Milne, G.R.: Should tweets differ for B2B and B2C? an analysis of Fortune 500 companies’ Twitter communications. Industrial Marketing Management 43(5), 873–881 (2014)

    2014

  44. [52]

    Journal of Public Policy & Marketing pp

    Taylor, C.R., Lee, J.Y .: Not in vogue: Portrayals of asian americans in magazine advertising. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing pp. 239–245 (1994)

    1994

  45. [53]

    Journal of advertising 26(2), 47–61 (1997)

    Taylor, C.R., Stern, B.B.: Asian-americans: Television advertising and the model minority stereotype. Journal of advertising 26(2), 47–61 (1997)

    1997

  46. [54]

    Univ of California Press (1989)

    Taylor, E.: Prime-time families: television culture in post-war America. Univ of California Press (1989)

    1989

  47. [55]

    Journal of International Migration and Inte- gration 12(4), 411–428 (2011)

    Trebbe, J., Schoenhagen, P.: Ethnic minorities in the mass media: How migrants perceive their representation in swiss public television. Journal of International Migration and Inte- gration 12(4), 411–428 (2011)

    2011

  48. [56]

    Behavioral and brain sciences 32(5), 403–405 (2009)

    Vazire, S., Naumann, L.P., Rentfrow, P.J., Gosling, S.D.: Smiling reflects different emotions in men and women. Behavioral and brain sciences 32(5), 403–405 (2009)

    2009

  49. [57]

    Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5), 375–390 (2009)

    Vigil, J.M.: A socio-relational framework of sex differences in the expression of emotion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5), 375–390 (2009)

    2009

  50. [58]

    British Journal of Social Psychology 30(3), 207–219 (1991)

    Wallbott, H.G.: Recognition of emotion from facial expression via imitation? some indirect evidence for an old theory. British Journal of Social Psychology 30(3), 207–219 (1991)

    1991

  51. [59]

    In: Proceedings of WWW Companion (2014)

    Zagheni, E., Garimella, V .R.K., Weber, I., et al.: Inferring international and internal migration patterns from Twitter data. In: Proceedings of WWW Companion (2014)

    2014

  52. [60]

    Journalism Quarterly 67(3), 547–553 (1990)

    Zinkhan, G.M., Quails, W.J., Biswas, A.: The use of blacks in magazine and television ad- vertising: 1946 to 1986. Journalism Quarterly 67(3), 547–553 (1990)

    1990

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.