Evolving social values: Intersectional Analysis of Same-sex and Interracial Couples in Magazine Advertisements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study used a quantitative content analysis and qualitative image analysis to explore the representation and intersectionality of same-sex and opposite-sex couples with interracial and intraracial couples in advertisements from Canadian Living, Châtelaine, Cosmopolitan, Elle, Men’s Health, Reader’s Digest, and Sports Illustrated magazines between January 2021 to March 2024. Observations collected from a sample of 208 advertisements depicting two or more adults were used to tentatively suggest dominant Canadian social values towards same-sex and interracial couples. Advertisement images were coded for gender, race, the activity depicted, the physical touch between adults, and the presence of children. Results showed that representation of same-sex couples, both interracial and intraracial, was higher than the proportion reported in Canada in 2016. Similarly, the representation of interracial couples, both same-sex and opposite- sex, was higher than the proportion reported in Canada in 2021. These two findings suggest growing acceptance of same-sex relationships and interracial relationships. Interracial couples involving a White female partner occurred far more often than those involving a White male partner, suggesting social disapproval of unions between White women and visible minorities may no longer prevail. However, in advertisements with interracial or intraracial couples, depictions of physical intimacy favoured couples that were of the opposite sex. Advertisements with same-sex couples displaying intimacy were more often intraracial than interracial. Displays of intimacy from same-sex couples were almost exclusively between two women, and no interracial couples were engaged in very intimate touch. Results of the intersectional analysis finds a bias favouring intraracial, opposite-sex couples over both interracial, same-sex couples and interracial, opposite-sex couples unless the couples were engaged in simple touch, conveying friendship over intimacy. These biases suggest social approval of interracial relationships and same-sex relationships as long as they appear superficial or casual and potential social disapproval of relationships that are both interracial and same-sex. Only four advertisements depicted children with couples, and these showed a bias favouring opposite-sex, intraracial couples. The overall results from this study indicate that although there is increased representation of same-sex couples and interracial couples, advertisements may continue to reflect and perpetuate heteronormative and intraracial social values in concepts of relationships and family.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".