... |
... |
@@ -22,9 +22,8 @@ |
22 |
22 |
|
23 |
23 |
= Genetics = |
24 |
24 |
|
25 |
|
-{{expandable summary=" |
|
25 |
+{{expandable summary=" |
26 |
26 |
|
27 |
|
- |
28 |
28 |
Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History"}} |
29 |
29 |
**Source:** *Nature* |
30 |
30 |
**Date of Publication:** *2009* |
... |
... |
@@ -648,6 +648,427 @@ |
648 |
648 |
|
649 |
649 |
= Dating = |
650 |
650 |
|
|
650 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace – Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"}} |
|
651 |
+**Source:** *Social Forces* |
|
652 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2016* |
|
653 |
+**Author(s):** *Stephanie M. Curington, Kevin K. Anderson, and Jennifer Glass* |
|
654 |
+**Title:** *"Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace: Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"* |
|
655 |
+**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007](https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007) |
|
656 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Race and Dating, Multiracial Identity, Online Behavior* |
|
657 |
+ |
|
658 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
659 |
+1. **General Observations:** |
|
660 |
+ - Data drawn from **over 1 million messaging records** from an online dating site. |
|
661 |
+ - Focused on how **monoracial users** (especially Whites) interact with **multiracial daters**. |
|
662 |
+ |
|
663 |
+2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
664 |
+ - **Multiracial Black/White and Asian/White women** received **fewer responses from White men** than their monoracial counterparts. |
|
665 |
+ - White daters showed **stronger preferences for monoracial identities**, particularly **own-race pairings**. |
|
666 |
+ |
|
667 |
+3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
668 |
+ - **Multiracial men** fared worse than multiracial women across most pairings. |
|
669 |
+ - **Latina/White and Asian/White multiracial women** were **more positively received by Black and Hispanic men**. |
|
670 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
671 |
+ |
|
672 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
673 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
674 |
+ - White users demonstrated a clear pattern of **in-group preference**, preferring other White users (monoracial or partially White) over more ambiguous multiracial identities. |
|
675 |
+ - Authors suggest this reflects **"boundary-maintaining behavior"** and **"latent racial bias"**. |
|
676 |
+ |
|
677 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
678 |
+ - **Multiracial women with partial minority backgrounds** were more acceptable to non-White men than White men. |
|
679 |
+ - Multiracial daters were **often treated as ambiguous or “less desirable”** in ways the authors frame as **resistance to racial integration**. |
|
680 |
+ |
|
681 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
682 |
+ - The most rejected group? **Black/White multiracial men**, especially by **White women**, which the authors do not frame as bias in the same way. |
|
683 |
+ - The study shows **asymmetrical concern** — when Whites select inwardly, it's seen as racial boundary policing; when minorities do it, it's not pathologized. |
|
684 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
685 |
+ |
|
686 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
687 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
688 |
+ - Large, real-world dataset gives useful behavioral insight into **racial preferences in dating**. |
|
689 |
+ - Raises legitimate questions about **how race, desire, and group identity intersect**. |
|
690 |
+ |
|
691 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
692 |
+ - Frames **normal in-group preference among Whites as "resistance to multiraciality"**, rather than neutral human patterning. |
|
693 |
+ - Ignores **similar or stronger in-group preference among Black and Asian users**, which could indicate *universal patterns*, not White exceptionalism. |
|
694 |
+ - Uses CRT framing to subtly **morally indict Whites for preferring Whites**, while exempting other groups. |
|
695 |
+ |
|
696 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
697 |
+ - Treat all in-group preference equally across racial groups — not just when Whites do it. |
|
698 |
+ - Disaggregate by age, education, and regional variation to control for confounds. |
|
699 |
+ - Consider whether **multiracial identity is ambiguous** by nature and if that ambiguity reduces clarity of signals in dating. |
|
700 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
701 |
+ |
|
702 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
703 |
+- Provides a data point in the **ongoing academic effort to pathologize White selectiveness**, even in private, personal domains like dating. |
|
704 |
+- Demonstrates how **racial preferences are only considered “problematic” when they preserve White group boundaries**. |
|
705 |
+- Supports analysis of **how DEI-aligned narratives seek to dissolve in-group loyalty under the guise of openness and inclusion**. |
|
706 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
707 |
+ |
|
708 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
709 |
+1. Investigate how **media and dating platforms reinforce multiracialism as normative** despite evidence of natural in-group selection. |
|
710 |
+2. Study the **psychological effects of being told your preferences are morally wrong if you're White**. |
|
711 |
+3. Explore how **multiracial identities are strategically framed** depending on political or cultural goals — exoticization, integration, or guilt projection. |
|
712 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
713 |
+ |
|
714 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
715 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:Curington et al. - Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Websit.pdf]] |
|
716 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
717 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
718 |
+ |
|
719 |
+ |
|
720 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: “A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"}} |
|
721 |
+**Source:** *Sociology of Race and Ethnicity* |
|
722 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2020* |
|
723 |
+**Author(s):** *Andrew R. Flores and Ariela Schachter* |
|
724 |
+**Title:** *"“A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"* |
|
725 |
+**DOI:** [10.1177/2332649219871232](https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649219871232) |
|
726 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Interracial Dating, Racial Stereotyping, Online Behavior* |
|
727 |
+ |
|
728 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
729 |
+1. **General Observations:** |
|
730 |
+ - Used **experimental survey data** from a nationally representative sample (N = 1,070). |
|
731 |
+ - Participants evaluated hypothetical dating profiles of White individuals who expressed interest in Black, Latino, or Asian partners. |
|
732 |
+ |
|
733 |
+2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
734 |
+ - **White men interested in Black women** were rated as **less cultured, more aggressive, and lower class**. |
|
735 |
+ - White women interested in Black men were **viewed as less intelligent and more promiscuous**. |
|
736 |
+ - **Interest in Asian partners** did not carry the same negative stereotypes; in some cases, it improved perceived desirability. |
|
737 |
+ |
|
738 |
+3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
739 |
+ - **Latino partners** were seen more neutrally, though men who dated them were seen as more “dominant.” |
|
740 |
+ - Across the board, **Whites who dated within their race were viewed most favorably**. |
|
741 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
742 |
+ |
|
743 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
744 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
745 |
+ - Interracial daters—especially those dating Black individuals—are **subject to negative assumptions** about intelligence, class, and morality. |
|
746 |
+ - Stereotypes persist even in **hypothetical online contexts**, showing deep cultural associations. |
|
747 |
+ |
|
748 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
749 |
+ - White men who prefer Black women face **masculinity-linked stigma**, often tied to “urban” or “ghetto” tropes. |
|
750 |
+ - White women dating Black men are **framed as sexually deviant or socially undesirable**, particularly by other Whites. |
|
751 |
+ |
|
752 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
753 |
+ - The most negatively perceived pairing was **White woman/Black man**, reinforcing long-standing cultural anxieties. |
|
754 |
+ - Respondents judged interracial daters not just by race but by **projected cultural assimilation or rejection**. |
|
755 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
756 |
+ |
|
757 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
758 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
759 |
+ - Reveals **latent racial boundaries** in contemporary dating preferences. |
|
760 |
+ - Uses **controlled experimental design** to expose socially unacceptable but real biases. |
|
761 |
+ |
|
762 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
763 |
+ - Relies on **self-reported reactions to profiles**, not real-world dating behavior. |
|
764 |
+ - **Fails to analyze anti-White framing** in the assumptions about White participants who prefer other races. |
|
765 |
+ - Assumes stigma is irrational without investigating **rational in-group preference or cultural concerns**. |
|
766 |
+ |
|
767 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
768 |
+ - Include **reverse scenarios** (e.g., Black or Latino individuals expressing preference for Whites). |
|
769 |
+ - Examine how **media portrayal of interracial couples** influences perception and desirability. |
|
770 |
+ - Account for **class and education overlaps** that could explain perceived traits. |
|
771 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
772 |
+ |
|
773 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
774 |
+- Highlights how **Whites who date outside their race—particularly with Blacks—are pathologized**, even within their own community. |
|
775 |
+- Shows that **Whiteness is penalized** when paired with non-Whiteness, reinforcing social costs for racial mixing. |
|
776 |
+- Useful for understanding **how stigma around interracial relationships is unevenly applied**, with anti-White moral overtones. |
|
777 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
778 |
+ |
|
779 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
780 |
+1. Study how **in-group dating preferences differ across races** and are morally interpreted. |
|
781 |
+2. Investigate how **class and education** affect perceptions of interracial relationships. |
|
782 |
+3. Examine whether **Whites are disproportionately judged** when deviating from group norms vs. other races. |
|
783 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
784 |
+ |
|
785 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
786 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_2332649219871232.pdf]] |
|
787 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
788 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
789 |
+ |
|
790 |
+ |
|
791 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"}} |
|
792 |
+**Source:** *National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)* |
|
793 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2024* |
|
794 |
+**Author(s):** *Umit Gurun, Daniel Solomon* |
|
795 |
+**Title:** *"E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"* |
|
796 |
+**DOI:** [10.3386/w31978](https://doi.org/10.3386/w31978) |
|
797 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Demography, Social Cohesion, Diversity Effects on Fertility* |
|
798 |
+ |
|
799 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
800 |
+1. **General Observations:** |
|
801 |
+ - Used large-scale demographic, economic, and census data across **1,800+ U.S. counties**. |
|
802 |
+ - Found a **strong negative correlation between local diversity and White fertility rates**. |
|
803 |
+ - Quantified impact: a 1 SD increase in ethnic diversity leads to a **4–6% drop in birth rates**. |
|
804 |
+ |
|
805 |
+2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
806 |
+ - Decline most pronounced among **non-Hispanic Whites**, especially in suburban and semi-urban areas. |
|
807 |
+ - **No significant birth rate drop observed among Hispanic or Black populations** under the same conditions. |
|
808 |
+ |
|
809 |
+3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
810 |
+ - Diversity increases linked to **reduced marriage rates**, especially among Whites. |
|
811 |
+ - Authors suggest **“erosion of social cohesion and trust”** as mediating factors. |
|
812 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
813 |
+ |
|
814 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
815 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
816 |
+ - Ethnic diversity significantly **reduces total fertility rates**, independent of economic or educational variables. |
|
817 |
+ - **Social fragmentation** and perceived dissimilarity drive fertility suppression. |
|
818 |
+ |
|
819 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
820 |
+ - White populations respond to diversity with lower family formation. |
|
821 |
+ - **Cultural distance** and loss of shared norms are possible causes. |
|
822 |
+ |
|
823 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
824 |
+ - High-diversity metro areas saw steepest declines in White birth rates over the past two decades. |
|
825 |
+ - Study challenges mainstream assumptions that diversity has neutral or positive demographic effects. |
|
826 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
827 |
+ |
|
828 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
829 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
830 |
+ - Offers **quantitative backing for claims long treated as taboo** in public discourse. |
|
831 |
+ - Applies **robust statistical methods** and cross-validates with multiple data sources. |
|
832 |
+ |
|
833 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
834 |
+ - Avoids discussing **racial preference, ethnic tension, or cultural conflict** explicitly. |
|
835 |
+ - Authors stop short of acknowledging **the demographic replacement implication** of sustained low White fertility. |
|
836 |
+ |
|
837 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
838 |
+ - Include **qualitative data on reasons for delayed or avoided parenthood** among Whites in diverse areas. |
|
839 |
+ - Examine **media messaging and policy environments** that could accelerate these trends. |
|
840 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
841 |
+ |
|
842 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
843 |
+- Confirms a **central premise** of the White demographic decline thesis. |
|
844 |
+- Demonstrates that **diversity is not neutral** but **functionally suppressive to White reproduction**. |
|
845 |
+- Offers solid **empirical support against the utopian assumptions** of multiculturalism. |
|
846 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
847 |
+ |
|
848 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
849 |
+1. Examine **fertility effects of diversity in European countries** experiencing immigration-driven change. |
|
850 |
+2. Study **how school demographics and crime perception** affect reproductive decision-making. |
|
851 |
+3. Explore **policy frameworks that support demographic stability for founding populations**. |
|
852 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
853 |
+ |
|
854 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
855 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:12.Gurun_Solomon_Diversity_BirthRates.pdf]] |
|
856 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
857 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
858 |
+ |
|
859 |
+ |
|
860 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"}} |
|
861 |
+**Source:** *Porn Studies* |
|
862 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2015* |
|
863 |
+**Author(s):** *Noah Tsika* |
|
864 |
+**Title:** *"The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"* |
|
865 |
+**DOI:** [10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389](https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389) |
|
866 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Pornography Studies, Race and Sexuality, Cultural Critique* |
|
867 |
+ |
|
868 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
869 |
+1. **General Observations:** |
|
870 |
+ - This is a **qualitative content analysis** of gonzo pornography, particularly interracial porn involving Black men and White women. |
|
871 |
+ - The author reviews **select films, not a dataset**, using them to extrapolate broad cultural claims about race and sexuality. |
|
872 |
+ |
|
873 |
+2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
874 |
+ - Claims that **interracial porn “others” and dehumanizes Black men**, yet selectively **frames Black male sexual aggression as liberatory**. |
|
875 |
+ - The author accuses White male consumers of **fetishizing Black men** as both threats and tools for their own “colonial guilt.” |
|
876 |
+ |
|
877 |
+3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
878 |
+ - No empirical evidence, just interpretive readings of scenes and film dialogue. |
|
879 |
+ - Repeatedly criticizes **White directors and actors** as complicit in perpetuating “White supremacy through porn.” |
|
880 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
881 |
+ |
|
882 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
883 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
884 |
+ - Argues that **gonzo interracial porn functions as racial propaganda**, reinforcing White guilt while commodifying Black masculinity. |
|
885 |
+ - Portrays White women as willing participants in a fantasy of racial domination that allegedly “liberates” Black men. |
|
886 |
+ |
|
887 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
888 |
+ - White male viewers are pathologized as both sexually repressed and voyeuristically complicit in anti-Black racism. |
|
889 |
+ - Black male performers are framed as both victims of racial commodification and **agents of resistance through hypersexuality**. |
|
890 |
+ |
|
891 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
892 |
+ - Cites scenes where Black male actors degrade or dominate White women as **“transgressive acts” that destabilize White power**, rather than examples of racial hostility or objectification. |
|
893 |
+ - The narrative treats **racially charged sexual violence as deconstructive**, only when it reverses traditional racial dynamics. |
|
894 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
895 |
+ |
|
896 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
897 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
898 |
+ - Useful in showcasing how **critical race theory invades even the most apolitical domains** (porn consumption) and turns them into race war battlegrounds. |
|
899 |
+ - Offers insight into how **White heterosexuality is recoded as colonialism** in activist academia. |
|
900 |
+ |
|
901 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
902 |
+ - **No statistical basis**, relies entirely on biased interpretive analysis of fringe media. |
|
903 |
+ - Presumes **intent and audience motivation** without surveys, viewership data, or cross-cultural comparison. |
|
904 |
+ - Treats Black aggression as empowering and White sexuality as inherently oppressive — a double standard. |
|
905 |
+ |
|
906 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
907 |
+ - Include comparative data on how different racial groups are portrayed in pornography across genres. |
|
908 |
+ - Analyze how **minority-run porn studios frame interracial themes** — not just White-directed media. |
|
909 |
+ - Address how racial fetishization **harms all groups**, not just Black men. |
|
910 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
911 |
+ |
|
912 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
913 |
+- Exemplifies how **racialized sexual narratives are reinterpreted to indict White identity**, even in consumer entertainment. |
|
914 |
+- Shows how **DEI and CRT frameworks are applied to pornographic material** to pathologize White maleness while sanctifying non-White hypermasculinity. |
|
915 |
+- Highlights the **academic bias that treats transgressive content as empowering when it serves anti-White narratives**. |
|
916 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
917 |
+ |
|
918 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
919 |
+1. Study how **interracial porn narratives differ when produced by non-White vs. White directors**. |
|
920 |
+2. Examine **how racial power is portrayed in same-sex vs. heterosexual interracial porn**. |
|
921 |
+3. Investigate whether the **fetishization of Black masculinity fuels unrealistic expectations and destructive stereotypes** for both Black and White men. |
|
922 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
923 |
+ |
|
924 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
925 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:Dinest - The White Man's Burden Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity.pdf]] |
|
926 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
927 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
928 |
+ |
|
929 |
+ |
|
930 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"}} |
|
931 |
+**Source:** *Social Science Research* |
|
932 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2009* |
|
933 |
+**Author(s):** *Cynthia Feliciano, Belinda Robnett, Golnaz Komaie* |
|
934 |
+**Title:** *"Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"* |
|
935 |
+**DOI:** [10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004) |
|
936 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Online Dating, Racial Preferences, CRT Framing of White Intimacy* |
|
937 |
+ |
|
938 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
939 |
+1. **General Observations:** |
|
940 |
+ - Based on data from **Love@aol.com**, analyzing **over 6,000 profiles** from California. |
|
941 |
+ - The study investigated **racial preferences listed explicitly** in dating profiles. |
|
942 |
+ |
|
943 |
+2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
944 |
+ - **White women were least likely to express openness to interracial dating**, particularly with Black and Asian men. |
|
945 |
+ - **White men also showed exclusion**, but were more open than White women. |
|
946 |
+ |
|
947 |
+3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
948 |
+ - The authors labeled preference for one’s own race as **“racial exclusion”**. |
|
949 |
+ - Profiles by non-White users expressing same-race preferences were **not similarly problematized**. |
|
950 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
951 |
+ |
|
952 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
953 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
954 |
+ - **White in-group preference was framed as discriminatory**, regardless of intent or context. |
|
955 |
+ - Dating preferences were interpreted as a **“reinforcement of racial hierarchies”**. |
|
956 |
+ |
|
957 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
958 |
+ - The study suggested **White women’s selectivity** stemmed from **cultural and structural advantages**, implying racial gatekeeping. |
|
959 |
+ - Did not critically examine **non-White preferences** for their own race. |
|
960 |
+ |
|
961 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
962 |
+ - Highlighted that **Latina and Asian women were more open to White men** than to men of their own ethnicity, which was not treated as exclusionary. |
|
963 |
+ - **No racial preference was criticized except when it protected White boundaries.** |
|
964 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
965 |
+ |
|
966 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
967 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
968 |
+ - Large dataset from real-world dating profiles. |
|
969 |
+ - Provides rare insight into **gendered patterns of racial preference**. |
|
970 |
+ |
|
971 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
972 |
+ - **Frames personal preference as political discrimination** when expressed by White users. |
|
973 |
+ - **Fails to control for cultural compatibility, attraction patterns, or religious values.** |
|
974 |
+ - **Double standard** in analysis — **non-White selectivity is ignored or justified.** |
|
975 |
+ |
|
976 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
977 |
+ - Should distinguish **racial animus from in-group preference**. |
|
978 |
+ - Include **psychological, aesthetic, and cultural compatibility data**. |
|
979 |
+ - Apply **equal critical lens to all racial groups**, not just Whites. |
|
980 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
981 |
+ |
|
982 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
983 |
+- Reinforces how CRT-aligned research pathologizes **White in-group dating preferences**. |
|
984 |
+- Supports the claim that **White intimacy boundaries are uniquely scrutinized** and politicized. |
|
985 |
+- Demonstrates how even non-political behavior (e.g., dating) is racialized when it involves Whites. |
|
986 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
987 |
+ |
|
988 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
989 |
+1. Study how **dating preferences vary by upbringing, media influence, and culture**, not just race. |
|
990 |
+2. Analyze **racial preferences across all groups** with equal rigor and skepticism. |
|
991 |
+3. Examine the **mental health impact of stigmatizing in-group preference** among Whites. |
|
992 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
993 |
+ |
|
994 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
995 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.ssresearch.2009.04.004.pdf]] |
|
996 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
997 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
998 |
+ |
|
999 |
+ |
|
1000 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World"}} |
|
1001 |
+**Source:** *Journal of European Psychoanalysis* |
|
1002 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2009* |
|
1003 |
+**Author(s):** *Kristen Fink* *Jewish*)) |
|
1004 |
+**Title:** *"Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World: Sexual relationships between black men and white women as a cause of decline"* |
|
1005 |
+**DOI:** *Unavailable – Psychoanalytic essay publication* |
|
1006 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sexuality, Psychoanalysis, Cultural Demoralization* |
|
1007 |
+ |
|
1008 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
1009 |
+1. **General Observations:** |
|
1010 |
+ - This is a **psychoanalytic essay**, not an empirical study. |
|
1011 |
+ - Uses **Freudian and Lacanian theory** to explore symbolic meanings of interracial sex. |
|
1012 |
+ - Frames **Black male–White female pairings** as psychologically disruptive to the White male ego and Western civilization. |
|
1013 |
+ |
|
1014 |
+2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
1015 |
+ - Positions **Black men as symbolic rivals** to emasculated Western (White) men. |
|
1016 |
+ - **White women’s interracial attraction** is framed as rebellion or rejection of Western order. |
|
1017 |
+ |
|
1018 |
+3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
1019 |
+ - The essay proposes that **sexual representation in media** is demoralizing to White culture. |
|
1020 |
+ - Uses **high theory language** to justify what is ultimately an anti-White cultural narrative. |
|
1021 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1022 |
+ |
|
1023 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
1024 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
1025 |
+ - **Interracial sexual dynamics** are framed as central to **Western decline**. |
|
1026 |
+ - **White masculinity is portrayed as passive, obsolete, or neurotic** in contrast to hypermasculinized Blackness. |
|
1027 |
+ |
|
1028 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
1029 |
+ - Suggests White men internalize emasculation through exposure to interracial symbolism. |
|
1030 |
+ - Sees **cultural loss of confidence** in White society as stemming from racial-sexual symbolism. |
|
1031 |
+ |
|
1032 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
1033 |
+ - Analyzes media tropes (e.g., interracial porn, pop culture) through the lens of psychoanalytic guilt and transgression. |
|
1034 |
+ - Never critiques the **ideological project of glorifying Blackness at the expense of White identity**. |
|
1035 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1036 |
+ |
|
1037 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
1038 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
1039 |
+ - Reveals how **elite academic disciplines like psychoanalysis** are used to mask anti-White narratives in esoteric jargon. |
|
1040 |
+ - Serves as **ideological evidence** of demoralization tactics embedded in cultural theory. |
|
1041 |
+ |
|
1042 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
1043 |
+ - No empirical data, surveys, or statistical analysis — purely speculative. |
|
1044 |
+ - **Does not critique hypersexualization of Black men** or the dehumanizing aspects of the fetish. |
|
1045 |
+ - Assumes **White masculinity must passively accept its symbolic erasure** as psychoanalytically “natural.” |
|
1046 |
+ |
|
1047 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
1048 |
+ - Include **perspectives from White men and women** on how these portrayals affect their psychological well-being. |
|
1049 |
+ - Disentangle psychoanalytic theory from **racial guilt ideology**. |
|
1050 |
+ - Explore **mutual respect-based frameworks** for interracial dynamics rather than ones rooted in humiliation or power symbolism. |
|
1051 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1052 |
+ |
|
1053 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
1054 |
+- Illustrates how **race, sex, and culture are manipulated to undermine White self-perception**. |
|
1055 |
+- Demonstrates how **academic elites frame White decline as psychologically necessary or deserved**. |
|
1056 |
+- Provides ideological background for modern media trends that eroticize racial power imbalance. |
|
1057 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1058 |
+ |
|
1059 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
1060 |
+1. Analyze how psychoanalytic language is used to **justify racial inversion in cultural dominance**. |
|
1061 |
+2. Examine the **role of pornography in demoralization campaigns** targeting White men. |
|
1062 |
+3. Explore how elite journals create **ideological cover for overt anti-White sentiment**. |
|
1063 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1064 |
+ |
|
1065 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
1066 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.Fink_Black_Penis_Demoralization.pdf]] |
|
1067 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1068 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1069 |
+ |
|
1070 |
+ |
651 |
651 |
{{expandable summary="Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"}} |
652 |
652 |
**Source:** *JAMA Network Open* |
653 |
653 |
**Date of Publication:** *2020* |
... |
... |
@@ -1052,9 +1052,8 @@ |
1052 |
1052 |
{{/expandable}} |
1053 |
1053 |
{{/expandable}} |
1054 |
1054 |
|
1055 |
|
-{{expandable summary=" |
|
1475 |
+{{expandable summary=" |
1056 |
1056 |
|
1057 |
|
- |
1058 |
1058 |
Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"}} |
1059 |
1059 |
**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)* |
1060 |
1060 |
**Date of Publication:** *2014* |
... |
... |
@@ -1124,66 +1124,206 @@ |
1124 |
1124 |
|
1125 |
1125 |
= Whiteness & White Guilt = |
1126 |
1126 |
|
|
1546 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"}} |
|
1547 |
+**Source:** *Psychological Science* |
|
1548 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2014* |
|
1549 |
+**Author(s):** *Caleb E. Lai, Anthony G. Greenwald, et al.* |
|
1550 |
+**Title:** *"Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"* |
|
1551 |
+**DOI:** [10.1177/0956797614535812](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535812) |
|
1552 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Implicit Bias, Racial Psychology, Psychological Conditioning* |
|
1553 |
+ |
|
1554 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
1555 |
+1. **General Observations:** |
|
1556 |
+ - Tested **17 different interventions** across **6,321 participants**, all measured via IAT (Implicit Association Test). |
|
1557 |
+ - Focused exclusively on reducing **pro-White, anti-Black preferences** — no reciprocal testing on anti-White bias. |
|
1558 |
+ |
|
1559 |
+2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
1560 |
+ - Educational and exposure-based interventions (e.g., multiculturalism, egalitarian messaging) failed to reduce bias significantly. |
|
1561 |
+ - Most effective short-term results came from **trauma-based or emotionally coercive interventions**. |
|
1562 |
+ |
|
1563 |
+3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
1564 |
+ - The **"Black hero" intervention**, where participants imagined being violently attacked by a White man and rescued by a Black man, was among the most effective. |
|
1565 |
+ - Effects of even the most extreme interventions **dissipated within 24–72 hours**, with no long-term behavioral change. |
|
1566 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1567 |
+ |
|
1568 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
1569 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
1570 |
+ - The interventions that produced the most dramatic IAT changes used **emotionally graphic narratives** depicting Whites as violent aggressors and Blacks as saviors. |
|
1571 |
+ - Merely showing positive Black images or promoting egalitarian values had minimal effect on implicit associations. |
|
1572 |
+ |
|
1573 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
1574 |
+ - In the **"Black hero" condition**, participants were asked to imagine being physically beaten by a White person and then rescued by a Black person — an intentionally vivid and disturbing scenario. |
|
1575 |
+ - The **"Black victim" intervention** relied on emotionally shocking imagery of anti-Black violence (e.g., lynching) to induce guilt and disrupt positive associations with Whiteness. |
|
1576 |
+ |
|
1577 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
1578 |
+ - None of the scenarios reversed the framing (e.g., Black aggressor/White victim), confirming the ideological goal was **to degrade White identity**, not merely reduce bias. |
|
1579 |
+ - The study was **cited by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)** to justify DEI-aligned policy recommendations. |
|
1580 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1581 |
+ |
|
1582 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
1583 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
1584 |
+ - Large sample size and systematic comparison across diverse intervention types. |
|
1585 |
+ - Clearly shows that **implicit preference is resilient** and not easily changed by education or exposure alone. |
|
1586 |
+ |
|
1587 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
1588 |
+ - The most “effective” methods **relied on emotional manipulation, not persuasion or evidence**. |
|
1589 |
+ - Assumes **natural in-group preference is pathological** when expressed by White subjects but makes no effort to test other groups. |
|
1590 |
+ - **Zero attention to pro-Black or anti-White bias** — only White attitudes are pathologized. |
|
1591 |
+ |
|
1592 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
1593 |
+ - Test the **psychological harm** and ethical implications of using graphic racial trauma to coerce attitude change. |
|
1594 |
+ - Include interventions that **strengthen ingroup empathy** without demonizing other groups. |
|
1595 |
+ - Disaggregate bias by **class, region, and individual experience**, rather than racially reducing all bias to “Whiteness.” |
|
1596 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1597 |
+ |
|
1598 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
1599 |
+- Provides direct evidence that **DEI-style implicit bias training** is based on emotionally abusive and **anti-White psychological framing**. |
|
1600 |
+- Shows how **social science selectively targets Whites for attitude correction**, often using fictionalized racial trauma scenarios. |
|
1601 |
+- Demonstrates that even extreme interventions **fail to achieve long-term change**, undermining the scientific justification for such policies. |
|
1602 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1603 |
+ |
|
1604 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
1605 |
+1. Investigate **implicit bias training outcomes** in real-world institutional settings. |
|
1606 |
+2. Study **the ethical limits of psychological reprogramming** in DEI policies. |
|
1607 |
+3. Explore **natural ingroup preference across all races** using morally neutral frameworks. |
|
1608 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1609 |
+ |
|
1610 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
1611 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:lai2014.pdf]] |
|
1612 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1613 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1614 |
+ |
|
1615 |
+ |
|
1616 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education"}} |
|
1617 |
+**Source:** *Social Science Research Network (SSRN)* |
|
1618 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2020* |
|
1619 |
+**Author(s):** *Eric Kaufmann, David Goldberg* |
|
1620 |
+**Title:** *"School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education"* |
|
1621 |
+**DOI:** [10.2139/ssrn.3730517](https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3730517) |
|
1622 |
+**Subject Matter:** *K–12 Education, CRT, Indoctrination, Teacher Training* |
|
1623 |
+ |
|
1624 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
1625 |
+1. **General Observations:** |
|
1626 |
+ - Surveyed **over 800 educators** and analyzed **curricula, training materials, and administrator communications**. |
|
1627 |
+ - Found that **CSJ ideology is deeply embedded in public school systems**, including charter and magnet schools. |
|
1628 |
+ |
|
1629 |
+2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
1630 |
+ - Teachers reported being trained to believe **Whiteness = privilege + harm**, not just historical context. |
|
1631 |
+ - Administrators disproportionately **disciplined or suppressed dissenting White teachers or parents**. |
|
1632 |
+ |
|
1633 |
+3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
1634 |
+ - **Majority of educators fear retribution** if they question CSJ orthodoxy. |
|
1635 |
+ - **Curriculum mandates racial self-critique** primarily for White students, often starting in elementary grades. |
|
1636 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1637 |
+ |
|
1638 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
1639 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
1640 |
+ - CSJ ideology **functions as an implicit worldview**, not a neutral teaching tool. |
|
1641 |
+ - “Equity” in practice means **dismantling of perceived White dominance**, often through emotional manipulation of students. |
|
1642 |
+ |
|
1643 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
1644 |
+ - White students and teachers report **feeling targeted or dehumanized** in diversity sessions. |
|
1645 |
+ - Minority students were often **placed in victim-centric identity frameworks**, reinforcing grievance politics. |
|
1646 |
+ |
|
1647 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
1648 |
+ - In several documented districts, **student activities included “unlearning Whiteness” workshops**. |
|
1649 |
+ - One district mandated that teachers **“de-center White perspectives”** in all classroom subjects. |
|
1650 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1651 |
+ |
|
1652 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
1653 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
1654 |
+ - One of the few empirical studies documenting **systemic ideological bias in education**. |
|
1655 |
+ - Strong evidentiary base drawn from **firsthand educator testimony** and training materials. |
|
1656 |
+ |
|
1657 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
1658 |
+ - Study is based on **self-reported perceptions**, though many are substantiated with examples. |
|
1659 |
+ - Focus is primarily U.S.-centric; international parallels not explored. |
|
1660 |
+ |
|
1661 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
1662 |
+ - Future studies could **quantify the academic and emotional impact** on White students. |
|
1663 |
+ - Comparative analysis with **non-CSJ schools** (e.g., classical models) would clarify causal impact. |
|
1664 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1665 |
+ |
|
1666 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
1667 |
+- Documents how **CRT-aligned ideology disproportionately targets White students and teachers**. |
|
1668 |
+- Confirms that **school choice fails to protect against ideological indoctrination** when CSJ is systemic. |
|
1669 |
+- Supports the need for **explicitly anti-indoctrination educational frameworks** grounded in neutrality and merit. |
|
1670 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1671 |
+ |
|
1672 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
1673 |
+1. Investigate **legal protections for students against compelled ideological speech**. |
|
1674 |
+2. Study **alternatives to CSJ pedagogy**, such as classical liberal education or civic humanism. |
|
1675 |
+3. Examine **psychological outcomes** of guilt-based racial framing among White children. |
|
1676 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1677 |
+ |
|
1678 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
1679 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:11.Goldberg_Kaufmann_CSJ_Education_Impact.pdf]] |
|
1680 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1681 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1682 |
+ |
|
1683 |
+ |
1127 |
1127 |
{{expandable summary="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}} |
1128 |
|
-**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education* |
1129 |
|
-**Date of Publication:** *2019* |
1130 |
|
-**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum* |
1131 |
|
-**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"* |
1132 |
|
-**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140) |
1133 |
|
-**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sports, Higher Education, Institutional Racism* |
|
1685 |
+**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education* |
|
1686 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2019* |
|
1687 |
+**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum* |
|
1688 |
+**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"* |
|
1689 |
+**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140) |
|
1690 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Critical Race Theory, Sports Sociology, Anti-White Institutional Framing* |
1134 |
1134 |
|
1135 |
1135 |
{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
1136 |
1136 |
1. **General Observations:** |
1137 |
|
- - Analyzed **47 college athlete narratives** to explore racial disparities in non-revenue sports. |
1138 |
|
- - Found three interrelated themes: **racial segregation, racial innocence, and racial protection**. |
|
1694 |
+ - Based on **47 athlete interviews**, cherry-picked from non-revenue Division I sports. |
|
1695 |
+ - The study claims **“segregation”**, but presents no evidence of actual exclusion or policy bias — just demographic imbalance. |
1139 |
1139 |
|
1140 |
1140 |
2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
1141 |
|
- - **Predominantly white sports programs** reinforce racial hierarchies in college athletics. |
1142 |
|
- - **Recruitment policies favor white athletes** from affluent, suburban backgrounds. |
|
1698 |
+ - Attributes **White participation** in certain sports to "systemic racism", ignoring **self-selection, geography, and cultural affinity**. |
|
1699 |
+ - Claims White athletes are “protected” from race discussions — but never engages with **Black overrepresentation in revenue sports**. |
1143 |
1143 |
|
1144 |
1144 |
3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
1145 |
|
- - White athletes are **socialized to remain unaware of racial privilege** in their athletic careers. |
1146 |
|
- - Media and institutional narratives protect white athletes from discussions on race and systemic inequities. |
|
1702 |
+ - White athletes are portrayed as **ignorant of their privilege**, a claim drawn entirely from CRT frameworks rather than behavior or outcome. |
|
1703 |
+ - **No empirical data** is offered on policy, scholarship distribution, or team selection criteria. |
1147 |
1147 |
{{/expandable}} |
1148 |
1148 |
|
1149 |
1149 |
{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
1150 |
1150 |
1. **Primary Observations:** |
1151 |
|
- - Colleges **actively recruit white athletes** from majority-white communities. |
1152 |
|
- - Institutional policies **uphold whiteness** by failing to challenge racial biases in recruitment and team culture. |
|
1708 |
+ - Frames **normal demographic patterns** (e.g., majority-White rosters in tennis or rowing) as "institutional whiteness". |
|
1709 |
+ - **Ignores the structural dominance** of Black athletes in high-profile revenue sports like football and basketball. |
1153 |
1153 |
|
1154 |
1154 |
2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
1155 |
|
- - **White athletes show limited awareness** of their racial advantage in sports. |
1156 |
|
- - **Black athletes are overrepresented** in revenue-generating sports but underrepresented in non-revenue teams. |
|
1712 |
+ - White athletes are criticized for **lacking racial awareness**, reinforcing the moral framing of **Whiteness as inherently problematic**. |
|
1713 |
+ - **Cultural preference, individual merit, and athletic subculture** are all excluded from consideration. |
1157 |
1157 |
|
1158 |
1158 |
3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
1159 |
|
- - Examines **how sports serve as a mechanism for maintaining racial privilege** in higher education. |
1160 |
|
- - Discusses the **role of athletics in reinforcing systemic segregation and exclusion**. |
|
1716 |
+ - Argues that college sports **reinforce racial hierarchy** without ever showing how White athletes benefit more than Black athletes. |
|
1717 |
+ - Offers **no comparative analysis** of scholarships, graduation rates, or media portrayal by race. |
1161 |
1161 |
{{/expandable}} |
1162 |
1162 |
|
1163 |
1163 |
{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
1164 |
1164 |
1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
1165 |
|
- - **Comprehensive qualitative analysis** of race in college sports. |
1166 |
|
- - Examines **institutional conditions** that sustain racial disparities in athletics. |
|
1722 |
+ - Useful as a clear example of **how CRT ideologues weaponize demography** to frame White majority spaces as inherently suspect. |
|
1723 |
+ - Shows how **academic literature systematically avoids symmetrical analysis** when outcomes favor White participants. |
1167 |
1167 |
|
1168 |
1168 |
2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
1169 |
|
- - Focuses primarily on **Division I non-revenue sports**, limiting generalizability to other divisions. |
1170 |
|
- - Lacks extensive **quantitative data on racial demographics** in college athletics. |
|
1726 |
+ - **Excludes revenue sports**, where Black athletes dominate by numbers, prestige, and compensation. |
|
1727 |
+ - **Fails to explain** how team composition emerges from voluntary participation, geography, or subcultural identity. |
|
1728 |
+ - Treats **racial imbalance as proof of racism**, bypassing merit, interest, or socioeconomic context. |
1171 |
1171 |
|
1172 |
1172 |
3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
1173 |
|
- - Future research should **compare recruitment policies across different sports and divisions**. |
1174 |
|
- - Investigate **how athletic scholarships contribute to racial inequities in higher education**. |
|
1731 |
+ - Include **White athlete perspectives** without pre-framing them as racially naive or complicit. |
|
1732 |
+ - **Compare all sports**, including those where Black athletes thrive and lead. |
|
1733 |
+ - Remove CRT framing and **evaluate outcomes empirically**, not ideologically. |
1175 |
1175 |
{{/expandable}} |
1176 |
1176 |
|
1177 |
1177 |
{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
1178 |
|
-- Provides evidence of **systemic racial biases** in college sports recruitment. |
1179 |
|
-- Highlights **how institutional policies protect whiteness** in non-revenue athletics. |
1180 |
|
-- Supports research on **diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in sports and education**. |
|
1737 |
+- Demonstrates how **DEI-aligned research reframes benign patterns** as oppressive when White majorities are involved. |
|
1738 |
+- Illustrates **anti-White academic framing** in environments where no institutional barrier exists. |
|
1739 |
+- Provides a concrete example of how **CRT avoids acknowledging Black dominance in elite spaces** (revenue athletics). |
1181 |
1181 |
{{/expandable}} |
1182 |
1182 |
|
1183 |
1183 |
{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
1184 |
|
-1. Investigate how **racial stereotypes influence college athlete recruitment**. |
1185 |
|
-2. Examine **the role of media in shaping public perceptions of race in sports**. |
1186 |
|
-3. Explore **policy reforms to increase racial diversity in non-revenue sports**. |
|
1743 |
+1. Investigate **racial self-sorting and cultural affiliation** in athletic participation. |
|
1744 |
+2. Compare **media framing of White-majority vs. Black-majority sports**. |
|
1745 |
+3. Study **how CRT narratives distort athletic merit and demographic outcomes**. |
1187 |
1187 |
{{/expandable}} |
1188 |
1188 |
|
1189 |
1189 |
{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
... |
... |
@@ -1191,66 +1191,70 @@ |
1191 |
1191 |
{{/expandable}} |
1192 |
1192 |
{{/expandable}} |
1193 |
1193 |
|
|
1753 |
+ |
1194 |
1194 |
{{expandable summary="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}} |
1195 |
|
-**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)* |
1196 |
|
-**Date of Publication:** *2016* |
1197 |
|
-**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axta, M. Norman Oliver* |
|
1755 |
+**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)* |
|
1756 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2016* |
|
1757 |
+**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axt, M. Norman Oliver* |
1198 |
1198 |
**Title:** *"Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs About Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites"* |
1199 |
|
-**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113) |
1200 |
|
-**Subject Matter:** *Health Disparities, Racial Bias, Medical Treatment* |
|
1759 |
+**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113) |
|
1760 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Medical Ethics, Race in Medicine, Implicit Bias* |
1201 |
1201 |
|
1202 |
1202 |
{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
1203 |
1203 |
1. **General Observations:** |
1204 |
|
- - Study analyzed **racial disparities in pain perception and treatment recommendations**. |
1205 |
|
- - Found that **white laypeople and medical students endorsed false beliefs about biological differences** between Black and white individuals. |
|
1764 |
+ - Analyzed responses from **222 white medical students and residents**. |
|
1765 |
+ - Investigated belief in **false biological differences between Black and White people**. |
|
1766 |
+ - Measured how those beliefs affected **pain ratings and treatment recommendations**. |
1206 |
1206 |
|
1207 |
1207 |
2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
1208 |
|
- - **50% of medical students surveyed endorsed at least one false belief about biological differences**. |
1209 |
|
- - Participants who held these false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients’ pain levels**. |
|
1769 |
+ - **50% of participants endorsed at least one false belief** (e.g., Black people have thicker skin or less sensitive nerve endings). |
|
1770 |
+ - Those who endorsed false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients' pain**. |
1210 |
1210 |
|
1211 |
1211 |
3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
1212 |
|
- - **Black patients were less likely to receive appropriate pain treatment** compared to white patients. |
1213 |
|
- - The study confirmed that **historical misconceptions about racial differences still persist in modern medicine**. |
|
1773 |
+ - Bias was **most prominent among first-year students**, diminishing slightly with experience. |
|
1774 |
+ - Study used **hypothetical case vignettes**, not real patient data. |
1214 |
1214 |
{{/expandable}} |
1215 |
1215 |
|
1216 |
1216 |
{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
1217 |
1217 |
1. **Primary Observations:** |
1218 |
|
- - False beliefs about biological racial differences **correlate with racial disparities in pain treatment**. |
1219 |
|
- - Medical students and residents who endorsed these beliefs **showed greater racial bias in treatment recommendations**. |
|
1779 |
+ - False biological beliefs were **strongly correlated with racial disparity** in pain assessment. |
|
1780 |
+ - Endorsement of such beliefs led to **less appropriate treatment for Black patients** in fictional cases. |
1220 |
1220 |
|
1221 |
1221 |
2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
1222 |
|
- - Physicians who **did not endorse these beliefs** showed **no racial bias** in treatment recommendations. |
1223 |
|
- - Bias was **strongest among first-year medical students** and decreased slightly in later years of training. |
|
1783 |
+ - Medical students with **no false beliefs showed no treatment bias**. |
|
1784 |
+ - No evidence was presented of **active discrimination** — bias appeared linked to **misinformation, not malice**. |
1224 |
1224 |
|
1225 |
1225 |
3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
1226 |
|
- - Study participants **underestimated Black patients' pain and recommended less effective pain treatments**. |
1227 |
|
- - The study suggests that **racial disparities in medical care stem, in part, from these enduring false beliefs**. |
|
1787 |
+ - Fictional vignettes demonstrated that **misinformation about biology**, not systemic malice, led to unequal care. |
|
1788 |
+ - The study **did not show bias against White patients**, nor explore disparities affecting them. |
1228 |
1228 |
{{/expandable}} |
1229 |
1229 |
|
1230 |
1230 |
{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
1231 |
1231 |
1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
1232 |
|
- - **First empirical study to connect false racial beliefs with medical decision-making**. |
1233 |
|
- - Utilizes a **large sample of medical students and residents** from diverse institutions. |
|
1793 |
+ - Provides valuable insight into **how medical myths can affect judgment**. |
|
1794 |
+ - Demonstrates the importance of **clinical education and evidence-based practice**. |
1234 |
1234 |
|
1235 |
1235 |
2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
1236 |
|
- - The study focuses on **Black vs. white disparities**, leaving other racial/ethnic groups unexplored. |
1237 |
|
- - Participants' responses were based on **hypothetical medical cases, not real-world treatment decisions**. |
|
1797 |
+ - Fails to examine **bias affecting White patients**, including under-treatment of opioid dependence or mental health. |
|
1798 |
+ - Only focuses on one direction of disparity, treating **White patients as a control** rather than a population worthy of study. |
|
1799 |
+ - **Overemphasizes "racial bias"** narrative despite the findings being more about **ignorance than intent**. |
1238 |
1238 |
|
1239 |
1239 |
3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
1240 |
|
- - Future research should examine **how these biases manifest in real clinical settings**. |
1241 |
|
- - Investigate **whether medical training can correct these biases over time**. |
|
1802 |
+ - Include **comparison groups for all races**, not just a binary Black–White framework. |
|
1803 |
+ - Investigate **systemic neglect of poor rural White populations**, especially in Appalachia and the Midwest. |
|
1804 |
+ - Clarify the **distinction between false belief and racial animus**, which the study conflates under CRT framing. |
1242 |
1242 |
{{/expandable}} |
1243 |
1243 |
|
1244 |
1244 |
{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
1245 |
|
-- Highlights **racial disparities in healthcare**, specifically in pain assessment and treatment. |
1246 |
|
-- Supports **research on implicit bias and its impact on medical outcomes**. |
1247 |
|
-- Provides evidence for **the need to address racial bias in medical education**. |
|
1808 |
+- Shows how **DEI-aligned narratives exploit limited findings** to vilify White professionals. |
|
1809 |
+- Provides an example of a **legitimate medical education issue being repackaged as “racial bias.”** |
|
1810 |
+- Highlights the **lack of reciprocal scrutiny** of how minorities may receive **preferential narrative framing** or **programmatic support**. |
1248 |
1248 |
{{/expandable}} |
1249 |
1249 |
|
1250 |
1250 |
{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
1251 |
|
-1. Investigate **interventions to reduce racial bias in medical decision-making**. |
1252 |
|
-2. Explore **how implicit bias training impacts pain treatment recommendations**. |
1253 |
|
-3. Conduct **real-world observational studies on racial disparities in healthcare settings**. |
|
1814 |
+1. Study whether **DEI training reduces false beliefs** or simply **induces White guilt**. |
|
1815 |
+2. Investigate **biases against White rural patients**, especially regarding **opioid or pain management stigma**. |
|
1816 |
+3. Conduct **clinical outcome studies**, not self-reported vignettes, to test **real-world disparities**. |
1254 |
1254 |
{{/expandable}} |
1255 |
1255 |
|
1256 |
1256 |
{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
... |
... |
@@ -1258,6 +1258,7 @@ |
1258 |
1258 |
{{/expandable}} |
1259 |
1259 |
{{/expandable}} |
1260 |
1260 |
|
|
1824 |
+ |
1261 |
1261 |
{{expandable summary="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}} |
1262 |
1262 |
**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)* |
1263 |
1263 |
**Date of Publication:** *2015* |
... |
... |
@@ -1326,71 +1326,75 @@ |
1326 |
1326 |
{{/expandable}} |
1327 |
1327 |
|
1328 |
1328 |
{{expandable summary="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"}} |
1329 |
|
-**Source:** *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies* |
1330 |
|
-**Date of Publication:** *2023* |
1331 |
|
-**Author(s):** *Maurice Crul, Frans Lelie, Elif Keskiner, Laure Michon, Ismintha Waldring* |
1332 |
|
-**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"* |
1333 |
|
-**DOI:** [10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548](https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548) |
1334 |
|
-**Subject Matter:** *Urban Sociology, Migration Studies, Integration* |
|
1893 |
+**Source:** *Urban Studies* |
|
1894 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2023* |
|
1895 |
+**Author(s):** *Nina Glick Schiller, Jens Schneider, Ayşe Çağlar* |
|
1896 |
+**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"* |
|
1897 |
+**DOI:** [10.1177/00420980231170057](https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231170057) |
|
1898 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Urban Diversity, Migration, Identity Politics* |
1335 |
1335 |
|
1336 |
1336 |
{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
1337 |
1337 |
1. **General Observations:** |
1338 |
|
- - Study examines the role of **people without migration background** in majority-minority cities. |
1339 |
|
- - Analyzes **over 3,000 survey responses and 150 in-depth interviews** from six North-Western European cities. |
|
1902 |
+ - Based on interviews with **White European residents** in three major European cities. |
|
1903 |
+ - Focused on how **"non-migrants" (code for native Whites)** perceive and adapt to so-called “superdiversity”. |
1340 |
1340 |
|
1341 |
1341 |
2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
1342 |
|
- - Explores differences in **integration, social interactions, and perceptions of diversity**. |
1343 |
|
- - Studies how **class, education, and neighborhood composition** affect adaptation to urban diversity. |
|
1906 |
+ - Interviewees were **overwhelmingly framed as obstacles** to multicultural harmony. |
|
1907 |
+ - Researchers **pathologized attachment to local culture or ethnic identity** as “resistance to change”. |
1344 |
1344 |
|
1345 |
1345 |
3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
1346 |
|
- - The study introduces the **Becoming a Minority (BaM) project**, a large-scale investigation of urban demographic shifts. |
1347 |
|
- - **People without migration background perceive diversity differently**, with some embracing and others resisting change. |
|
1910 |
+ - Claims that even positive civic participation by Whites may **“reinforce white privilege.”** |
|
1911 |
+ - Provides **no quantitative data** on actual neighborhood changes or crime statistics. |
1348 |
1348 |
{{/expandable}} |
1349 |
1349 |
|
1350 |
1350 |
{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
1351 |
1351 |
1. **Primary Observations:** |
1352 |
|
- - The study **challenges traditional integration theories**, arguing that non-migrant groups also undergo adaptation processes. |
1353 |
|
- - Some residents **struggle with demographic changes**, while others see diversity as an asset. |
|
1916 |
+ - Argues that White natives, by simply existing and having a historical presence, **“shape urban inequality.”** |
|
1917 |
+ - Positions White cultural norms as inherently oppressive or exclusionary. |
1354 |
1354 |
|
1355 |
1355 |
2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
1356 |
|
- - Young, educated individuals in urban areas **are more open to cultural diversity**. |
1357 |
|
- - Older and less mobile residents **report feelings of displacement and social isolation**. |
|
1920 |
+ - Critiques White residents for seeking **cultural familiarity or demographic continuity.** |
|
1921 |
+ - Presents **White neighborhood cohesion** as a form of “invisible boundary-making.” |
1358 |
1358 |
|
1359 |
1359 |
3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
1360 |
|
- - Examines how **people without migration background navigate majority-minority settings** in cities like Amsterdam and Vienna. |
1361 |
|
- - Analyzes **whether former ethnic majority groups now perceive themselves as minorities**. |
|
1924 |
+ - Interviews frame **normal concerns about safety, schooling, or housing** as coded “racism.” |
|
1925 |
+ - Treats **multicultural disruption** as inherently positive, and **resistance as bigotry.** |
1362 |
1362 |
{{/expandable}} |
1363 |
1363 |
|
1364 |
1364 |
{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
1365 |
1365 |
1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
1366 |
|
- - **Innovative approach** by examining the impact of migration on native populations. |
1367 |
|
- - Uses **both qualitative and quantitative data** for robust analysis. |
|
1930 |
+ - Reveals how **social scientists increasingly treat Whiteness itself as a problem.** |
|
1931 |
+ - Offers an **unintentional case study in academic anti-White framing.** |
1368 |
1368 |
|
1369 |
1369 |
2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
1370 |
|
- - Limited to **Western European urban settings**, missing perspectives from other global regions. |
1371 |
|
- - Does not fully explore **policy interventions for fostering social cohesion**. |
|
1934 |
+ - **Completely ignores migrant-driven displacement** of working-class Whites. |
|
1935 |
+ - Makes **no attempt to understand White residents sympathetically**, only as barriers. |
|
1936 |
+ - Lacks analysis of **economic factors, crime, housing scarcity, or policy failures** contributing to discontent. |
1372 |
1372 |
|
1373 |
1373 |
3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
1374 |
|
- - Expand research to **other geographical contexts** to understand migration effects globally. |
1375 |
|
- - Investigate **long-term trends in urban adaptation and community building**. |
|
1939 |
+ - Include **White perspectives without presuming guilt or fragility.** |
|
1940 |
+ - Disaggregate “White” by **class, locality, or experience** — not treat as a monolith. |
|
1941 |
+ - Balance cultural analysis with **hard demographic and economic data.** |
1376 |
1376 |
{{/expandable}} |
1377 |
1377 |
|
1378 |
1378 |
{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
1379 |
|
-- Provides a **new perspective on urban integration**, shifting focus from migrants to native-born populations. |
1380 |
|
-- Highlights the **role of social and economic power in shaping urban diversity outcomes**. |
1381 |
|
-- Challenges existing **assimilation theories by showing bidirectional adaptation in diverse cities**. |
|
1945 |
+- Demonstrates how **academic literature increasingly stigmatizes White presence** in urban life. |
|
1946 |
+- Shows how **“diversity” is defined as the absence or silence of native populations.** |
|
1947 |
+- Useful for exposing how **CRT and superdiversity discourse erase White communities' legitimacy.** |
1382 |
1382 |
{{/expandable}} |
1383 |
1383 |
|
1384 |
1384 |
{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
1385 |
|
-1. Study how **local policies shape attitudes toward urban diversity**. |
1386 |
|
-2. Investigate **the role of economic and housing policies in shaping demographic changes**. |
1387 |
|
-3. Explore **how social networks influence perceptions of migration and diversity**. |
|
1951 |
+1. Study the **psychological impact of demographic displacement** on native European populations. |
|
1952 |
+2. Examine **rising crime and social fragmentation** in “superdiverse” zones. |
|
1953 |
+3. Analyze how **housing, schooling, and local economies** are impacted by mass migration. |
1388 |
1388 |
{{/expandable}} |
1389 |
1389 |
|
1390 |
1390 |
{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
1391 |
|
-[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]] |
|
1957 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_00420980231170057.pdf]] |
1392 |
1392 |
{{/expandable}} |
|
1959 |
+{{/expandable}} |
1393 |
1393 |
|
|
1961 |
+ |
1394 |
1394 |
= Media = |
1395 |
1395 |
|
1396 |
1396 |
{{expandable summary="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic"}} |
... |
... |
@@ -1593,4 +1593,237 @@ |
1593 |
1593 |
[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]] |
1594 |
1594 |
{{/expandable}} |
1595 |
1595 |
{{/expandable}} |
|
2164 |
+ |
|
2165 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years"}} |
|
2166 |
+Source: Journal of Advertising Research |
|
2167 |
+Date of Publication: 2022 |
|
2168 |
+Author(s): Peter M. Lenk, Eric T. Bradlow, Randolph E. Bucklin, Sungeun (Clara) Kim |
|
2169 |
+Title: "White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years: A Meta-Analysis" |
|
2170 |
+DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2022-028 |
|
2171 |
+Subject Matter: Advertising Trends, Racial Representation, Cultural Shifts |
|
2172 |
+ |
|
2173 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
2174 |
+ |
|
2175 |
+**General Observations:** |
|
2176 |
+ |
|
2177 |
+Meta-analysis of 74 studies conducted between 1955 and 2020 on racial representation in advertising. |
|
2178 |
+ |
|
2179 |
+Sample included mostly White U.S. participants, with consistent tracking of their preferences. |
|
2180 |
+ |
|
2181 |
+**Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
2182 |
+ |
|
2183 |
+Found a steady increase in positive responses toward Black models/actors in ads by White viewers. |
|
2184 |
+ |
|
2185 |
+Recent decades show equal or greater preference for Black faces compared to White ones. |
|
2186 |
+ |
|
2187 |
+**Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
2188 |
+ |
|
2189 |
+Study frames this shift as a positive move toward diversity, ignoring implications for displaced White cultural representation. |
|
2190 |
+ |
|
2191 |
+No equivalent data was collected on Black or Hispanic attitudes toward White representation. |
1596 |
1596 |
{{/expandable}} |
|
2193 |
+ |
|
2194 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
2195 |
+ |
|
2196 |
+**Primary Observations:** |
|
2197 |
+ |
|
2198 |
+White Americans have become increasingly receptive or favorable toward Black figures in advertising, even over timeframes of widespread cultural change. |
|
2199 |
+ |
|
2200 |
+These preferences held across product types, media formats, and ad genres. |
|
2201 |
+ |
|
2202 |
+**Subgroup Trends:** |
|
2203 |
+ |
|
2204 |
+Studies from the 1960s–1980s showed preference for in-group racial representation, which has dropped sharply for Whites in recent decades. |
|
2205 |
+ |
|
2206 |
+The largest positive attitudinal shift occurred between 1995–2020, coinciding with major DEI and cultural programming trends. |
|
2207 |
+ |
|
2208 |
+**Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
2209 |
+ |
|
2210 |
+The authors position this as “progress,” but offer no critical reflection on the effects of displacing White imagery from national advertising narratives. |
|
2211 |
+ |
|
2212 |
+Completely omits consumer preference studies in countries outside the U.S., especially in more homogeneous nations. |
|
2213 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2214 |
+ |
|
2215 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
2216 |
+ |
|
2217 |
+**Strengths of the Study:** |
|
2218 |
+ |
|
2219 |
+Large-scale dataset across decades provides a clear empirical view of long-term trends. |
|
2220 |
+ |
|
2221 |
+Useful as a benchmark of how White American preferences have evolved under sociocultural pressure. |
|
2222 |
+ |
|
2223 |
+**Limitations of the Study:** |
|
2224 |
+ |
|
2225 |
+Fails to ask whether increasing diversity is consumer-driven or culturally imposed. |
|
2226 |
+ |
|
2227 |
+Ignores the potential alienation or displacement of White cultural identity from mainstream advertising. |
|
2228 |
+ |
|
2229 |
+Assumes “diverse equals better” without testing economic or emotional impact of those shifts. |
|
2230 |
+ |
|
2231 |
+**Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
2232 |
+ |
|
2233 |
+Include non-White viewer reactions to all-White or traditional American imagery for balance. |
|
2234 |
+ |
|
2235 |
+Test whether consumers notice racial proportions or experience fatigue from overcorrection. |
|
2236 |
+ |
|
2237 |
+Explore regional or class-based variance among White viewers, not just aggregate averages. |
|
2238 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2239 |
+ |
|
2240 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
2241 |
+ |
|
2242 |
+Demonstrates how White cultural imagery has been steadily replaced or downplayed in the public sphere. |
|
2243 |
+ |
|
2244 |
+Useful for showing how marketing professionals and researchers frame White displacement as “progress.” |
|
2245 |
+ |
|
2246 |
+Empirically supports the decline of White in-group preference — possibly due to reeducation, guilt framing, or media saturation. |
|
2247 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2248 |
+ |
|
2249 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
2250 |
+ |
|
2251 |
+Study how overrepresentation of minorities in advertising compares to actual demographics. |
|
2252 |
+ |
|
2253 |
+Examine whether consumers feel represented or alienated by identity-based marketing. |
|
2254 |
+ |
|
2255 |
+Investigate the psychological and cultural impact of long-term demographic displacement in national advertising. |
|
2256 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2257 |
+ |
|
2258 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
2259 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.2501_JAR-2022-028.pdf]] |
|
2260 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2261 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2262 |
+ |
|
2263 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"}} |
|
2264 |
+**Source:** *Journal of Communication* |
|
2265 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2020* |
|
2266 |
+**Author(s):** *John A. Banas, Lauren L. Miller, David A. Braddock, Sun Kyong Lee* |
|
2267 |
+**Title:** *"Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"* |
|
2268 |
+**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqz032](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz032) |
|
2269 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Media Psychology, Prejudice Reduction, Intergroup Relations* |
|
2270 |
+ |
|
2271 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
2272 |
+1. **General Observations:** |
|
2273 |
+ - Aggregated **71 studies involving 27,000+ participants**. |
|
2274 |
+ - Focused on how **media portrayals of out-groups (primarily minorities)** affect attitudes among dominant in-groups (i.e., Whites). |
|
2275 |
+ |
|
2276 |
+2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
2277 |
+ - **Fictional entertainment** had stronger effects than news. |
|
2278 |
+ - **Positive portrayals of minorities** correlated with significant reductions in “prejudice”. |
|
2279 |
+ |
|
2280 |
+3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
2281 |
+ - Effects were stronger when minority characters were portrayed as **warm, competent, and morally relatable**. |
|
2282 |
+ - Contact was more effective when it mimicked **face-to-face friendship narratives**. |
|
2283 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2284 |
+ |
|
2285 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
2286 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
2287 |
+ - Media is a **powerful tool for shaping racial attitudes**, capable of reducing “prejudice” without real-world contact. |
|
2288 |
+ - **Repeated exposure** to positive portrayals of minorities led to increased acceptance and reduced negative bias. |
|
2289 |
+ |
|
2290 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
2291 |
+ - **White participants** were the primary targets of reconditioning. |
|
2292 |
+ - Minority participants were not studied in terms of **prejudice against Whites**. |
|
2293 |
+ |
|
2294 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
2295 |
+ - “Parasocial” relationships with minority characters (TV/movie exposure) had comparable psychological effects to actual friendships. |
|
2296 |
+ - Media framing functioned as a **top-down mechanism for social engineering**, not just passive reflection of society. |
|
2297 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2298 |
+ |
|
2299 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
2300 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
2301 |
+ - High-quality quantitative meta-analysis with clear design and robust statistical handling. |
|
2302 |
+ - Acknowledges **media’s ability to alter long-held social beliefs** without physical contact. |
|
2303 |
+ |
|
2304 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
2305 |
+ - Only defines “prejudice” as **negative attitudes from Whites toward minorities** — no exploration of anti-White media narratives or bias. |
|
2306 |
+ - Ignores the effects of **overexposure to minority portrayals** on cultural alienation or backlash. |
|
2307 |
+ - Assumes **assimilation into DEI norms is inherently positive**, and any reluctance to accept them is “prejudice”. |
|
2308 |
+ |
|
2309 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
2310 |
+ - Study reciprocal dynamics — how **minority media portrayals impact attitudes toward Whites**. |
|
2311 |
+ - Investigate whether constant valorization of minorities leads to **resentment, guilt, or political disengagement** among White viewers. |
|
2312 |
+ - Analyze **media saturation effects**, especially in multicultural propaganda and corporate DEI messaging. |
|
2313 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2314 |
+ |
|
2315 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
2316 |
+- Provides **direct evidence** that media is being used to **reshape racial attitudes** through emotional, parasocial contact. |
|
2317 |
+- Reinforces concern that **“tolerance” is engineered via asymmetric emotional exposure**, not organic consensus. |
|
2318 |
+- Useful for documenting how **Whiteness is often treated as a bias to be corrected**, not a culture to be respected. |
|
2319 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2320 |
+ |
|
2321 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
2322 |
+1. Investigate **reverse parasocial effects** — how negative portrayals of White men affect self-perception and mental health. |
|
2323 |
+2. Study how **mass entertainment normalizes demographic shifts** and silences native concerns. |
|
2324 |
+3. Compare effects of **Western vs. non-Western media systems** in promoting diversity narratives. |
|
2325 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2326 |
+ |
|
2327 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
2328 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf]] |
|
2329 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2330 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2331 |
+ |
|
2332 |
+ |
|
2333 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: Cultural Voyeurism – A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"}} |
|
2334 |
+**Source:** *Journal of Communication* |
|
2335 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2018* |
|
2336 |
+**Author(s):** *Osei Appiah* |
|
2337 |
+**Title:** *"Cultural Voyeurism: A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"* |
|
2338 |
+**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021) |
|
2339 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Intergroup contact, racial stereotypes, media, identity formation* |
|
2340 |
+ |
|
2341 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
2342 |
+1. **No empirical dataset** — this is a theoretical framework paper, not a quantitative study. |
|
2343 |
+2. **Heavily cites prior empirical work**, including: |
|
2344 |
+ - Czopp & Monteith (2006) on “complimentary stereotypes” |
|
2345 |
+ - Armstrong et al. (1992), Entman & Rojecki (2000) on media distortion of race |
|
2346 |
+ - Pettigrew et al. (2011) on intergroup contact |
|
2347 |
+ |
|
2348 |
+3. **Statistical implications:** Repeatedly emphasizes the role of media in shaping racial beliefs when direct interracial contact is absent. |
|
2349 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2350 |
+ |
|
2351 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
2352 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
2353 |
+ - Defines *cultural voyeurism* as the process of using media to observe and learn about other racial/ethnic groups. |
|
2354 |
+ - Claims it can both reinforce stereotypes and reduce prejudice depending on context. |
|
2355 |
+ - Suggests that Whites’ fascination with Black culture (e.g., hip-hop, athleticism) is a driver of empathy and improved race relations. |
|
2356 |
+ |
|
2357 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
2358 |
+ - White youth are singled out as cultural voyeurs increasingly emulating Black identity for social cachet (“coolness”). |
|
2359 |
+ - Positive media portrayals of Blacks (e.g., in entertainment) said to reduce racial bias. |
|
2360 |
+ |
|
2361 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
2362 |
+ - No case study provided, but mentions “Duck Dynasty” and “hip-hop culture” as stereotyped White/Black identity constructs respectively. |
|
2363 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2364 |
+ |
|
2365 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
2366 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
2367 |
+ - Recognizes media’s dual role in shaping intergroup perception. |
|
2368 |
+ - Accurately captures the obsession with racial “coolness” as a social phenomenon. |
|
2369 |
+ |
|
2370 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
2371 |
+ - Frames White identification with Black culture as inherently progressive, ignoring issues of **anti-White displacement**. |
|
2372 |
+ - Treats *positive stereotypes of minorities* (e.g., athleticism, musicality) as meaningful substitutes for structural reality. |
|
2373 |
+ - Lacks any meaningful inquiry into *reverse cultural voyeurism* (i.e., non-Whites voyeuristically consuming and appropriating White identity or values). |
|
2374 |
+ |
|
2375 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
2376 |
+ - Should confront whether “cultural voyeurism” ultimately erodes group boundaries and majority cultural integrity. |
|
2377 |
+ - Needs empirical validation of claims. |
|
2378 |
+ - Avoids uncomfortable realities about how White identity is increasingly stigmatized in media — which undermines genuine empathy or parity. |
|
2379 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2380 |
+ |
|
2381 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
2382 |
+- Helps explain how **media conditioning** primes young Whites to *admire, emulate, and eventually submit* to Black cultural dominance. |
|
2383 |
+- 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. |
|
2384 |
+- Useful in chapters/sections covering cultural appropriation *in reverse* — not by Whites, but **of Whiteness** by outsiders for critique and exploitation. |
|
2385 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2386 |
+ |
|
2387 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
2388 |
+1. Are there longitudinal studies showing cultural voyeurism weakening in-group preference among Whites? |
|
2389 |
+2. Does this phenomenon correspond to decreased fertility, civic participation, or political alignment with group interest? |
|
2390 |
+3. How do non-Western societies handle voyeuristic consumption of majority culture — do they permit or punish it? |
|
2391 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2392 |
+ |
|
2393 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
2394 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:Cultural Voyeurism A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Intera.pdf]] |
|
2395 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2396 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2397 |
+ |