0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

Last modified by Ryan C on 2025/06/26 03:09

From version 108.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/04 07:49
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 114.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 03:54
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -1123,65 +1123,67 @@
1123 1123  = Whiteness & White Guilt =
1124 1124  
1125 1125  {{expandable summary="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}}
1126 -**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1127 -**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1128 -**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1129 -**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1130 -**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1131 -**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sports, Higher Education, Institutional Racism*
1126 +**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1127 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1128 +**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1129 +**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1130 +**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1131 +**Subject Matter:** *Critical Race Theory, Sports Sociology, Anti-White Institutional Framing*
1132 1132  
1133 1133  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1134 1134  1. **General Observations:**
1135 - - Analyzed **47 college athlete narratives** to explore racial disparities in non-revenue sports.
1136 - - Found three interrelated themes: **racial segregation, racial innocence, and racial protection**.
1135 + - Based on **47 athlete interviews**, cherry-picked from non-revenue Division I sports.
1136 + - The study claims **segregation”**, but presents no evidence of actual exclusion or policy bias — just demographic imbalance.
1137 1137  
1138 1138  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1139 - - **Predominantly white sports programs** reinforce racial hierarchies in college athletics.
1140 - - **Recruitment policies favor white athletes** from affluent, suburban backgrounds.
1139 + - Attributes **White participation** in certain sports to "systemic racism", ignoring **self-selection, geography, and cultural affinity**.
1140 + - Claims White athletes are “protected” from race discussions — but never engages with **Black overrepresentation in revenue sports**.
1141 1141  
1142 1142  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1143 - - White athletes are **socialized to remain unaware of racial privilege** in their athletic careers.
1144 - - Media and institutional narratives protect white athletes from discussions on race and systemic inequities.
1143 + - White athletes are portrayed as **ignorant of their privilege**, a claim drawn entirely from CRT frameworks rather than behavior or outcome.
1144 + - **No empirical data** is offered on policy, scholarship distribution, or team selection criteria.
1145 1145  {{/expandable}}
1146 1146  
1147 1147  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1148 1148  1. **Primary Observations:**
1149 - - Colleges **actively recruit white athletes** from majority-white communities.
1150 - - Institutional policies **uphold whiteness** by failing to challenge racial biases in recruitment and team culture.
1149 + - Frames **normal demographic patterns** (e.g., majority-White rosters in tennis or rowing) as "institutional whiteness".
1150 + - **Ignores the structural dominance** of Black athletes in high-profile revenue sports like football and basketball.
1151 1151  
1152 1152  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1153 - - **White athletes show limited awareness** of their racial advantage in sports.
1154 - - **Black athletes are overrepresented** in revenue-generating sports but underrepresented in non-revenue teams.
1153 + - White athletes are criticized for **lacking racial awareness**, reinforcing the moral framing of **Whiteness as inherently problematic**.
1154 + - **Cultural preference, individual merit, and athletic subculture** are all excluded from consideration.
1155 1155  
1156 1156  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1157 - - Examines **how sports serve as a mechanism for maintaining racial privilege** in higher education.
1158 - - Discusses the **role of athletics in reinforcing systemic segregation and exclusion**.
1157 + - Argues that college sports **reinforce racial hierarchy** without ever showing how White athletes benefit more than Black athletes.
1158 + - Offers **no comparative analysis** of scholarships, graduation rates, or media portrayal by race.
1159 1159  {{/expandable}}
1160 1160  
1161 1161  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1162 1162  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1163 - - **Comprehensive qualitative analysis** of race in college sports.
1164 - - Examines **institutional conditions** that sustain racial disparities in athletics.
1163 + - Useful as a clear example of **how CRT ideologues weaponize demography** to frame White majority spaces as inherently suspect.
1164 + - Shows how **academic literature systematically avoids symmetrical analysis** when outcomes favor White participants.
1165 1165  
1166 1166  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1167 - - Focuses primarily on **Division I non-revenue sports**, limiting generalizability to other divisions.
1168 - - Lacks extensive **quantitative data on racial demographics** in college athletics.
1167 + - **Excludes revenue sports**, where Black athletes dominate by numbers, prestige, and compensation.
1168 + - **Fails to explain** how team composition emerges from voluntary participation, geography, or subcultural identity.
1169 + - Treats **racial imbalance as proof of racism**, bypassing merit, interest, or socioeconomic context.
1169 1169  
1170 1170  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1171 - - Future research should **compare recruitment policies across different sports and divisions**.
1172 - - Investigate **how athletic scholarships contribute to racial inequities in higher education**.
1172 + - Include **White athlete perspectives** without pre-framing them as racially naive or complicit.
1173 + - **Compare all sports**, including those where Black athletes thrive and lead.
1174 + - Remove CRT framing and **evaluate outcomes empirically**, not ideologically.
1173 1173  {{/expandable}}
1174 1174  
1175 1175  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1176 -- Provides evidence of **systemic racial biases** in college sports recruitment.
1177 -- Highlights **how institutional policies protect whiteness** in non-revenue athletics.
1178 -- Supports research on **diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in sports and education**.
1178 +- Demonstrates how **DEI-aligned research reframes benign patterns** as oppressive when White majorities are involved.
1179 +- Illustrates **anti-White academic framing** in environments where no institutional barrier exists.
1180 +- Provides a concrete example of how **CRT avoids acknowledging Black dominance in elite spaces** (revenue athletics).
1179 1179  {{/expandable}}
1180 1180  
1181 1181  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1182 -1. Investigate how **racial stereotypes influence college athlete recruitment**.
1183 -2. Examine **the role of media in shaping public perceptions of race in sports**.
1184 -3. Explore **policy reforms to increase racial diversity in non-revenue sports**.
1184 +1. Investigate **racial self-sorting and cultural affiliation** in athletic participation.
1185 +2. Compare **media framing of White-majority vs. Black-majority sports**.
1186 +3. Study **how CRT narratives distort athletic merit and demographic outcomes**.
1185 1185  {{/expandable}}
1186 1186  
1187 1187  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
... ... @@ -1189,66 +1189,70 @@
1189 1189  {{/expandable}}
1190 1190  {{/expandable}}
1191 1191  
1194 +
1192 1192  {{expandable summary="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
1193 -**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1194 -**Date of Publication:** *2016*
1195 -**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axta, M. Norman Oliver*
1196 +**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1197 +**Date of Publication:** *2016*
1198 +**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axt, M. Norman Oliver*
1196 1196  **Title:** *"Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs About Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites"*
1197 -**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1198 -**Subject Matter:** *Health Disparities, Racial Bias, Medical Treatment*
1200 +**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1201 +**Subject Matter:** *Medical Ethics, Race in Medicine, Implicit Bias*
1199 1199  
1200 1200  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1201 1201  1. **General Observations:**
1202 - - Study analyzed **racial disparities in pain perception and treatment recommendations**.
1203 - - Found that **white laypeople and medical students endorsed false beliefs about biological differences** between Black and white individuals.
1205 + - Analyzed responses from **222 white medical students and residents**.
1206 + - Investigated belief in **false biological differences between Black and White people**.
1207 + - Measured how those beliefs affected **pain ratings and treatment recommendations**.
1204 1204  
1205 1205  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1206 - - **50% of medical students surveyed endorsed at least one false belief about biological differences**.
1207 - - Participants who held these false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients pain levels**.
1210 + - **50% of participants endorsed at least one false belief** (e.g., Black people have thicker skin or less sensitive nerve endings).
1211 + - Those who endorsed false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients' pain**.
1208 1208  
1209 1209  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1210 - - **Black patients were less likely to receive appropriate pain treatment** compared to white patients.
1211 - - The study confirmed that **historical misconceptions about racial differences still persist in modern medicine**.
1214 + - Bias was **most prominent among first-year students**, diminishing slightly with experience.
1215 + - Study used **hypothetical case vignettes**, not real patient data.
1212 1212  {{/expandable}}
1213 1213  
1214 1214  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1215 1215  1. **Primary Observations:**
1216 - - False beliefs about biological racial differences **correlate with racial disparities in pain treatment**.
1217 - - Medical students and residents who endorsed these beliefs **showed greater racial bias in treatment recommendations**.
1220 + - False biological beliefs were **strongly correlated with racial disparity** in pain assessment.
1221 + - Endorsement of such beliefs led to **less appropriate treatment for Black patients** in fictional cases.
1218 1218  
1219 1219  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1220 - - Physicians who **did not endorse these beliefs** showed **no racial bias** in treatment recommendations.
1221 - - Bias was **strongest among first-year medical students** and decreased slightly in later years of training.
1224 + - Medical students with **no false beliefs showed no treatment bias**.
1225 + - No evidence was presented of **active discrimination** — bias appeared linked to **misinformation, not malice**.
1222 1222  
1223 1223  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1224 - - Study participants **underestimated Black patients' pain and recommended less effective pain treatments**.
1225 - - The study suggests that **racial disparities in medical care stem, in part, from these enduring false beliefs**.
1228 + - Fictional vignettes demonstrated that **misinformation about biology**, not systemic malice, led to unequal care.
1229 + - The study **did not show bias against White patients**, nor explore disparities affecting them.
1226 1226  {{/expandable}}
1227 1227  
1228 1228  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1229 1229  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1230 - - **First empirical study to connect false racial beliefs with medical decision-making**.
1231 - - Utilizes a **large sample of medical students and residents** from diverse institutions.
1234 + - Provides valuable insight into **how medical myths can affect judgment**.
1235 + - Demonstrates the importance of **clinical education and evidence-based practice**.
1232 1232  
1233 1233  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1234 - - The study focuses on **Black vs. white disparities**, leaving other racial/ethnic groups unexplored.
1235 - - Participants' responses were based on **hypothetical medical cases, not real-world treatment decisions**.
1238 + - Fails to examine **bias affecting White patients**, including under-treatment of opioid dependence or mental health.
1239 + - Only focuses on one direction of disparity, treating **White patients as a control** rather than a population worthy of study.
1240 + - **Overemphasizes "racial bias"** narrative despite the findings being more about **ignorance than intent**.
1236 1236  
1237 1237  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1238 - - Future research should examine **how these biases manifest in real clinical settings**.
1239 - - Investigate **whether medical training can correct these biases over time**.
1243 + - Include **comparison groups for all races**, not just a binary Black–White framework.
1244 + - Investigate **systemic neglect of poor rural White populations**, especially in Appalachia and the Midwest.
1245 + - Clarify the **distinction between false belief and racial animus**, which the study conflates under CRT framing.
1240 1240  {{/expandable}}
1241 1241  
1242 1242  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1243 -- Highlights **racial disparities in healthcare**, specifically in pain assessment and treatment.
1244 -- Supports **research on implicit bias and its impact on medical outcomes**.
1245 -- Provides evidence for **the need to address racial bias in medical education**.
1249 +- Shows how **DEI-aligned narratives exploit limited findings** to vilify White professionals.
1250 +- Provides an example of a **legitimate medical education issue being repackaged as “racial bias.”**
1251 +- Highlights the **lack of reciprocal scrutiny** of how minorities may receive **preferential narrative framing** or **programmatic support**.
1246 1246  {{/expandable}}
1247 1247  
1248 1248  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1249 -1. Investigate **interventions to reduce racial bias in medical decision-making**.
1250 -2. Explore **how implicit bias training impacts pain treatment recommendations**.
1251 -3. Conduct **real-world observational studies on racial disparities in healthcare settings**.
1255 +1. Study whether **DEI training reduces false beliefs** or simply **induces White guilt**.
1256 +2. Investigate **biases against White rural patients**, especially regarding **opioid or pain management stigma**.
1257 +3. Conduct **clinical outcome studies**, not self-reported vignettes, to test **real-world disparities**.
1252 1252  {{/expandable}}
1253 1253  
1254 1254  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
... ... @@ -1256,6 +1256,7 @@
1256 1256  {{/expandable}}
1257 1257  {{/expandable}}
1258 1258  
1265 +
1259 1259  {{expandable summary="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}}
1260 1260  **Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1261 1261  **Date of Publication:** *2015*
... ... @@ -1324,71 +1324,75 @@
1324 1324  {{/expandable}}
1325 1325  
1326 1326  {{expandable summary="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"}}
1327 -**Source:** *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies*
1328 -**Date of Publication:** *2023*
1329 -**Author(s):** *Maurice Crul, Frans Lelie, Elif Keskiner, Laure Michon, Ismintha Waldring*
1330 -**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1331 -**DOI:** [10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548](https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548)
1332 -**Subject Matter:** *Urban Sociology, Migration Studies, Integration*
1334 +**Source:** *Urban Studies*
1335 +**Date of Publication:** *2023*
1336 +**Author(s):** *Nina Glick Schiller, Jens Schneider, Ayşe Çağlar*
1337 +**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1338 +**DOI:** [10.1177/00420980231170057](https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231170057)
1339 +**Subject Matter:** *Urban Diversity, Migration, Identity Politics*
1333 1333  
1334 1334  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1335 1335  1. **General Observations:**
1336 - - Study examines the role of **people without migration background** in majority-minority cities.
1337 - - Analyzes **over 3,000 survey responses and 150 in-depth interviews** from six North-Western European cities.
1343 + - Based on interviews with **White European residents** in three major European cities.
1344 + - Focused on how **"non-migrants" (code for native Whites)** perceive and adapt to so-called “superdiversity”.
1338 1338  
1339 1339  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1340 - - Explores differences in **integration, social interactions, and perceptions of diversity**.
1341 - - Studies how **class, education, and neighborhood composition** affect adaptation to urban diversity.
1347 + - Interviewees were **overwhelmingly framed as obstacles** to multicultural harmony.
1348 + - Researchers **pathologized attachment to local culture or ethnic identity** as “resistance to change.
1342 1342  
1343 1343  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1344 - - The study introduces the **Becoming a Minority (BaM) project**, a large-scale investigation of urban demographic shifts.
1345 - - **People without migration background perceive diversity differently**, with some embracing and others resisting change.
1351 + - Claims that even positive civic participation by Whites may **“reinforce white privilege.”**
1352 + - Provides **no quantitative data** on actual neighborhood changes or crime statistics.
1346 1346  {{/expandable}}
1347 1347  
1348 1348  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1349 1349  1. **Primary Observations:**
1350 - - The study **challenges traditional integration theories**, arguing that non-migrant groups also undergo adaptation processes.
1351 - - Some residents **struggle with demographic changes**, while others see diversity as an asset.
1357 + - Argues that White natives, by simply existing and having a historical presence, **“shape urban inequality.”**
1358 + - Positions White cultural norms as inherently oppressive or exclusionary.
1352 1352  
1353 1353  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1354 - - Young, educated individuals in urban areas **are more open to cultural diversity**.
1355 - - Older and less mobile residents **report feelings of displacement and social isolation**.
1361 + - Critiques White residents for seeking **cultural familiarity or demographic continuity.**
1362 + - Presents **White neighborhood cohesion** as a form of invisible boundary-making.
1356 1356  
1357 1357  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1358 - - Examines how **people without migration background navigate majority-minority settings** in cities like Amsterdam and Vienna.
1359 - - Analyzes **whether former ethnic majority groups now perceive themselves as minorities**.
1365 + - Interviews frame **normal concerns about safety, schooling, or housing** as coded racism.
1366 + - Treats **multicultural disruption** as inherently positive, and **resistance as bigotry.**
1360 1360  {{/expandable}}
1361 1361  
1362 1362  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1363 1363  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1364 - - **Innovative approach** by examining the impact of migration on native populations.
1365 - - Uses **both qualitative and quantitative data** for robust analysis.
1371 + - Reveals how **social scientists increasingly treat Whiteness itself as a problem.**
1372 + - Offers an **unintentional case study in academic anti-White framing.**
1366 1366  
1367 1367  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1368 - - Limited to **Western European urban settings**, missing perspectives from other global regions.
1369 - - Does not fully explore **policy interventions for fostering social cohesion**.
1375 + - **Completely ignores migrant-driven displacement** of working-class Whites.
1376 + - Makes **no attempt to understand White residents sympathetically**, only as barriers.
1377 + - Lacks analysis of **economic factors, crime, housing scarcity, or policy failures** contributing to discontent.
1370 1370  
1371 1371  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1372 - - Expand research to **other geographical contexts** to understand migration effects globally.
1373 - - Investigate **long-term trends in urban adaptation and community building**.
1380 + - Include **White perspectives without presuming guilt or fragility.**
1381 + - Disaggregate “White” by **class, locality, or experience** — not treat as a monolith.
1382 + - Balance cultural analysis with **hard demographic and economic data.**
1374 1374  {{/expandable}}
1375 1375  
1376 1376  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1377 -- Provides a **new perspective on urban integration**, shifting focus from migrants to native-born populations.
1378 -- Highlights the **role of social and economic power in shaping urban diversity outcomes**.
1379 -- Challenges existing **assimilation theories by showing bidirectional adaptation in diverse cities**.
1386 +- Demonstrates how **academic literature increasingly stigmatizes White presence** in urban life.
1387 +- Shows how **“diversity” is defined as the absence or silence of native populations.**
1388 +- Useful for exposing how **CRT and superdiversity discourse erase White communities' legitimacy.**
1380 1380  {{/expandable}}
1381 1381  
1382 1382  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1383 -1. Study how **local policies shape attitudes toward urban diversity**.
1384 -2. Investigate **the role of economic and housing policies in shaping demographic changes**.
1385 -3. Explore **how social networks influence perceptions of migration and diversity**.
1392 +1. Study the **psychological impact of demographic displacement** on native European populations.
1393 +2. Examine **rising crime and social fragmentation** in “superdiverse” zones.
1394 +3. Analyze how **housing, schooling, and local economies** are impacted by mass migration.
1386 1386  {{/expandable}}
1387 1387  
1388 1388  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1389 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]
1398 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_00420980231170057.pdf]]
1390 1390  {{/expandable}}
1400 +{{/expandable}}
1391 1391  
1402 +
1392 1392  = Media =
1393 1393  
1394 1394  {{expandable summary="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic"}}
... ... @@ -1591,4 +1591,171 @@
1591 1591  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]
1592 1592  {{/expandable}}
1593 1593  {{/expandable}}
1605 +
1606 +{{expandable summary="Study: White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years"}}
1607 +Source: Journal of Advertising Research
1608 +Date of Publication: 2022
1609 +Author(s): Peter M. Lenk, Eric T. Bradlow, Randolph E. Bucklin, Sungeun (Clara) Kim
1610 +Title: "White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years: A Meta-Analysis"
1611 +DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2022-028
1612 +Subject Matter: Advertising Trends, Racial Representation, Cultural Shifts
1613 +
1614 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1615 +
1616 +**General Observations:**
1617 +
1618 +Meta-analysis of 74 studies conducted between 1955 and 2020 on racial representation in advertising.
1619 +
1620 +Sample included mostly White U.S. participants, with consistent tracking of their preferences.
1621 +
1622 +**Subgroup Analysis:**
1623 +
1624 +Found a steady increase in positive responses toward Black models/actors in ads by White viewers.
1625 +
1626 +Recent decades show equal or greater preference for Black faces compared to White ones.
1627 +
1628 +**Other Significant Data Points:**
1629 +
1630 +Study frames this shift as a positive move toward diversity, ignoring implications for displaced White cultural representation.
1631 +
1632 +No equivalent data was collected on Black or Hispanic attitudes toward White representation.
1594 1594  {{/expandable}}
1634 +
1635 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1636 +
1637 +**Primary Observations:**
1638 +
1639 +White Americans have become increasingly receptive or favorable toward Black figures in advertising, even over timeframes of widespread cultural change.
1640 +
1641 +These preferences held across product types, media formats, and ad genres.
1642 +
1643 +**Subgroup Trends:**
1644 +
1645 +Studies from the 1960s–1980s showed preference for in-group racial representation, which has dropped sharply for Whites in recent decades.
1646 +
1647 +The largest positive attitudinal shift occurred between 1995–2020, coinciding with major DEI and cultural programming trends.
1648 +
1649 +**Specific Case Analysis:**
1650 +
1651 +The authors position this as “progress,” but offer no critical reflection on the effects of displacing White imagery from national advertising narratives.
1652 +
1653 +Completely omits consumer preference studies in countries outside the U.S., especially in more homogeneous nations.
1654 +{{/expandable}}
1655 +
1656 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1657 +
1658 +**Strengths of the Study:**
1659 +
1660 +Large-scale dataset across decades provides a clear empirical view of long-term trends.
1661 +
1662 +Useful as a benchmark of how White American preferences have evolved under sociocultural pressure.
1663 +
1664 +**Limitations of the Study:**
1665 +
1666 +Fails to ask whether increasing diversity is consumer-driven or culturally imposed.
1667 +
1668 +Ignores the potential alienation or displacement of White cultural identity from mainstream advertising.
1669 +
1670 +Assumes “diverse equals better” without testing economic or emotional impact of those shifts.
1671 +
1672 +**Suggestions for Improvement:**
1673 +
1674 +Include non-White viewer reactions to all-White or traditional American imagery for balance.
1675 +
1676 +Test whether consumers notice racial proportions or experience fatigue from overcorrection.
1677 +
1678 +Explore regional or class-based variance among White viewers, not just aggregate averages.
1679 +{{/expandable}}
1680 +
1681 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1682 +
1683 +Demonstrates how White cultural imagery has been steadily replaced or downplayed in the public sphere.
1684 +
1685 +Useful for showing how marketing professionals and researchers frame White displacement as “progress.”
1686 +
1687 +Empirically supports the decline of White in-group preference — possibly due to reeducation, guilt framing, or media saturation.
1688 +{{/expandable}}
1689 +
1690 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1691 +
1692 +Study how overrepresentation of minorities in advertising compares to actual demographics.
1693 +
1694 +Examine whether consumers feel represented or alienated by identity-based marketing.
1695 +
1696 +Investigate the psychological and cultural impact of long-term demographic displacement in national advertising.
1697 +{{/expandable}}
1698 +
1699 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1700 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.2501_JAR-2022-028.pdf]]
1701 +{{/expandable}}
1702 +{{/expandable}}
1703 +
1704 +{{expandable summary="Study: Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"}}
1705 +**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
1706 +**Date of Publication:** *2020*
1707 +**Author(s):** *John A. Banas, Lauren L. Miller, David A. Braddock, Sun Kyong Lee*
1708 +**Title:** *"Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"*
1709 +**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqz032](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz032)
1710 +**Subject Matter:** *Media Psychology, Prejudice Reduction, Intergroup Relations*
1711 +
1712 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1713 +1. **General Observations:**
1714 + - Aggregated **71 studies involving 27,000+ participants**.
1715 + - Focused on how **media portrayals of out-groups (primarily minorities)** affect attitudes among dominant in-groups (i.e., Whites).
1716 +
1717 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1718 + - **Fictional entertainment** had stronger effects than news.
1719 + - **Positive portrayals of minorities** correlated with significant reductions in “prejudice”.
1720 +
1721 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1722 + - Effects were stronger when minority characters were portrayed as **warm, competent, and morally relatable**.
1723 + - Contact was more effective when it mimicked **face-to-face friendship narratives**.
1724 +{{/expandable}}
1725 +
1726 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1727 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1728 + - Media is a **powerful tool for shaping racial attitudes**, capable of reducing “prejudice” without real-world contact.
1729 + - **Repeated exposure** to positive portrayals of minorities led to increased acceptance and reduced negative bias.
1730 +
1731 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1732 + - **White participants** were the primary targets of reconditioning.
1733 + - Minority participants were not studied in terms of **prejudice against Whites**.
1734 +
1735 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1736 + - “Parasocial” relationships with minority characters (TV/movie exposure) had comparable psychological effects to actual friendships.
1737 + - Media framing functioned as a **top-down mechanism for social engineering**, not just passive reflection of society.
1738 +{{/expandable}}
1739 +
1740 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1741 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1742 + - High-quality quantitative meta-analysis with clear design and robust statistical handling.
1743 + - Acknowledges **media’s ability to alter long-held social beliefs** without physical contact.
1744 +
1745 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1746 + - Only defines “prejudice” as **negative attitudes from Whites toward minorities** — no exploration of anti-White media narratives or bias.
1747 + - Ignores the effects of **overexposure to minority portrayals** on cultural alienation or backlash.
1748 + - Assumes **assimilation into DEI norms is inherently positive**, and any reluctance to accept them is “prejudice”.
1749 +
1750 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1751 + - Study reciprocal dynamics — how **minority media portrayals impact attitudes toward Whites**.
1752 + - Investigate whether constant valorization of minorities leads to **resentment, guilt, or political disengagement** among White viewers.
1753 + - Analyze **media saturation effects**, especially in multicultural propaganda and corporate DEI messaging.
1754 +{{/expandable}}
1755 +
1756 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1757 +- Provides **direct evidence** that media is being used to **reshape racial attitudes** through emotional, parasocial contact.
1758 +- Reinforces concern that **“tolerance” is engineered via asymmetric emotional exposure**, not organic consensus.
1759 +- Useful for documenting how **Whiteness is often treated as a bias to be corrected**, not a culture to be respected.
1760 +{{/expandable}}
1761 +
1762 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1763 +1. Investigate **reverse parasocial effects** — how negative portrayals of White men affect self-perception and mental health.
1764 +2. Study how **mass entertainment normalizes demographic shifts** and silences native concerns.
1765 +3. Compare effects of **Western vs. non-Western media systems** in promoting diversity narratives.
1766 +{{/expandable}}
1767 +
1768 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1769 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf]]
1770 +{{/expandable}}
1771 +{{/expandable}}
1772 +
lenk-et-al-white-americans-preference-for-black-people-in-advertising-has-increased-in-the-past-66-years-a-meta-analysis.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2.1 MB
Content