发表机构
New York University Abu Dhabi（纽约大学阿布扎比分校）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本研究通过分析1900-2024年好莱坞电影数据，发现存在“银幕惯性”，即种族与性别代表性不平等由机构维持而非市场理性反应，且招聘干预存在结构性天花板。
AI 中文摘要
好莱坞的演员阵容已实现多样化，但这种多样化是否转化为演员在叙事中的结构性变化，在很大程度上仍未得到研究。本研究基于1900年至2024年间的76815部美国英语电影及超过310万条演职人员条目，突破单纯的人数统计，通过网络中心性、职业刻板印象、演职人员与演员的多样性路径及财务结果，考察长期的包容性趋势。研究发现了所谓“银幕惯性”的证据：尽管女性和少数族裔的原始包容性略有提升，但近几十年来，白人演员相对于美国人口普查数据的占比反而愈发过高；在可见性层面，女性面临持续的寿命惩罚，职业生涯显著短于男性，且自1950年代以来，将男性描绘为主导者、女性描绘为感性角色的视觉刻画始终保持稳定。在结构性层面，白人演员仍拥有不成比例的网络中心性；女性在中心性和领衔主演方面达到均等，但集中于次要的联合主演角色；将种族和性别群体固定在特定劳动类别的职业刻板印象，在2000年前后基本未发生变化。演职人员多样性仅与匹配的人口统计类别（即种族与种族、性别与性别）的演员包容性相关，未延伸至叙事中心性，揭示了基于招聘的干预措施存在结构性天花板。关键的是，研究发现数十年的票房回报和观众评分中，多样性并未带来一致的市场惩罚，消除了支持这些实践的主要合理化理由。这些发现共同表明，好莱坞的代表性不平等并非理性的市场反应，而是由机构维持的选择。
英文摘要
Hollywood has diversified its casts. Whether this has translated into structural change in how those actors are positioned within narratives remains largely unexamined. Drawing on 76,815 U.S. English-language films (1900-2024) and over 3.1 million cast and crew entries, we move beyond headcounts to examine long-term inclusion trends through network centrality, occupational stereotypes, crew-to-cast diversity pathways, and financial outcomes. We find evidence of what we term on-screen inertia. While the raw inclusion of women and racial minorities has increased modestly, White actors have become more overrepresented relative to the U.S. Census in recent decades, not less. Within the visibility layer, women face a consistent longevity penalty with significantly shorter careers than men, and visual depictions framing men as dominant and women as sensual have remained stable since the 1950s. Structurally, White actors retain disproportionate network centrality; women achieve parity in centrality and lead billing yet cluster in secondary co-lead roles; and occupational stereotypes anchoring racial and gender groups to specific labor categories persist largely unchanged across the pre- and post-2000 periods. Crew diversity associates with cast inclusion only along matching demographic lines (i.e., racial with racial, gender with gender) and does not extend to narrative centrality, revealing a structural ceiling on hiring-based interventions. Critically, we find no consistent market penalty for diversity across decades of box office returns and audience ratings, eliminating the primary rationalization for these practices. Together, these findings demonstrate that Hollywood's representational inequalities are not a rational market response, but are an institutionally sustained choice.
Comments52 pages including Supplementary Information; 4 main figures, 15 supplementary figures, 17 supplementary tables
