Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35877670›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Investigating racial bias within Australian rules football commentary.

Scott A MacLeod, Philip W S Newall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Scott A MacLeodCentral Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5524-2339
Philip W S NewallCentral Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1660-9254

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

International research has shown that live sports commentary exhibits racial bias. Specifically, non-White players are more likely to be praised in terms of their physicality, while White players are more likely to be praised in terms of their intellect and character. The current study, which utilised a quantitative content analysis design, examined whether the speech of AFL commentators exhibited racial bias. The study randomly selected 50 men's AFL game quarters from the 2019 AFL season and analysed 1368 applicable statements directed at 382 unique players. Based on prior research, a coding instrument was developed that incorporated three main categories (physical, cognitive, and character attributes), and six subcategories (physical ability, appearance, cognitive ability, intelligence, general character, and hard work). In contrast to the international literature, findings revealed that there were no significant between-race differences for each main attribute category. However, non-White players received a higher proportion of statements related to their physical ability, and a lower proportion of statements related to their appearance compared to White players. Non-White players also received a higher proportion of negative statements related to their cognitive ability compared to White players. There was no evidence found to suggest that players of any race were discussed in terms of their physical ability being innate, natural, or instinctual. Given the strong, but also dated, evidence showing racial bias within both American and European sports commentary, the current study provides only weak evidence for the existence of racial bias within contemporary AFL live commentary.

Indexed as

FootballRacismSoccerAptitudeAustraliaHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID35877670
PMCPMC9312403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.