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 120.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 06:04
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -647,6 +647,287 @@
647 647  
648 648  = Dating =
649 649  
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: The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"}}
721 +**Source:** *Porn Studies*
722 +**Date of Publication:** *2015*
723 +**Author(s):** *Noah Tsika*
724 +**Title:** *"The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"*
725 +**DOI:** [10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389](https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389)
726 +**Subject Matter:** *Pornography Studies, Race and Sexuality, Cultural Critique*
727 +
728 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
729 +1. **General Observations:**
730 + - This is a **qualitative content analysis** of gonzo pornography, particularly interracial porn involving Black men and White women.
731 + - The author reviews **select films, not a dataset**, using them to extrapolate broad cultural claims about race and sexuality.
732 +
733 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
734 + - Claims that **interracial porn “others” and dehumanizes Black men**, yet selectively **frames Black male sexual aggression as liberatory**.
735 + - The author accuses White male consumers of **fetishizing Black men** as both threats and tools for their own “colonial guilt.”
736 +
737 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
738 + - No empirical evidence, just interpretive readings of scenes and film dialogue.
739 + - Repeatedly criticizes **White directors and actors** as complicit in perpetuating “White supremacy through porn.”
740 +{{/expandable}}
741 +
742 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
743 +1. **Primary Observations:**
744 + - Argues that **gonzo interracial porn functions as racial propaganda**, reinforcing White guilt while commodifying Black masculinity.
745 + - Portrays White women as willing participants in a fantasy of racial domination that allegedly “liberates” Black men.
746 +
747 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
748 + - White male viewers are pathologized as both sexually repressed and voyeuristically complicit in anti-Black racism.
749 + - Black male performers are framed as both victims of racial commodification and **agents of resistance through hypersexuality**.
750 +
751 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
752 + - 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.
753 + - The narrative treats **racially charged sexual violence as deconstructive**, only when it reverses traditional racial dynamics.
754 +{{/expandable}}
755 +
756 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
757 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
758 + - Useful in showcasing how **critical race theory invades even the most apolitical domains** (porn consumption) and turns them into race war battlegrounds.
759 + - Offers insight into how **White heterosexuality is recoded as colonialism** in activist academia.
760 +
761 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
762 + - **No statistical basis**, relies entirely on biased interpretive analysis of fringe media.
763 + - Presumes **intent and audience motivation** without surveys, viewership data, or cross-cultural comparison.
764 + - Treats Black aggression as empowering and White sexuality as inherently oppressive — a double standard.
765 +
766 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
767 + - Include comparative data on how different racial groups are portrayed in pornography across genres.
768 + - Analyze how **minority-run porn studios frame interracial themes** — not just White-directed media.
769 + - Address how racial fetishization **harms all groups**, not just Black men.
770 +{{/expandable}}
771 +
772 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
773 +- Exemplifies how **racialized sexual narratives are reinterpreted to indict White identity**, even in consumer entertainment.
774 +- Shows how **DEI and CRT frameworks are applied to pornographic material** to pathologize White maleness while sanctifying non-White hypermasculinity.
775 +- Highlights the **academic bias that treats transgressive content as empowering when it serves anti-White narratives**.
776 +{{/expandable}}
777 +
778 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
779 +1. Study how **interracial porn narratives differ when produced by non-White vs. White directors**.
780 +2. Examine **how racial power is portrayed in same-sex vs. heterosexual interracial porn**.
781 +3. Investigate whether the **fetishization of Black masculinity fuels unrealistic expectations and destructive stereotypes** for both Black and White men.
782 +{{/expandable}}
783 +
784 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
785 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Dinest - The White Man's Burden Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity.pdf]]
786 +{{/expandable}}
787 +{{/expandable}}
788 +
789 +
790 +{{expandable summary="Study: Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"}}
791 +**Source:** *Social Science Research*
792 +**Date of Publication:** *2009*
793 +**Author(s):** *Cynthia Feliciano, Belinda Robnett, Golnaz Komaie*
794 +**Title:** *"Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"*
795 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004)
796 +**Subject Matter:** *Online Dating, Racial Preferences, CRT Framing of White Intimacy*
797 +
798 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
799 +1. **General Observations:**
800 + - Based on data from **Love@aol.com**, analyzing **over 6,000 profiles** from California.
801 + - The study investigated **racial preferences listed explicitly** in dating profiles.
802 +
803 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
804 + - **White women were least likely to express openness to interracial dating**, particularly with Black and Asian men.
805 + - **White men also showed exclusion**, but were more open than White women.
806 +
807 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
808 + - The authors labeled preference for one’s own race as **“racial exclusion”**.
809 + - Profiles by non-White users expressing same-race preferences were **not similarly problematized**.
810 +{{/expandable}}
811 +
812 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
813 +1. **Primary Observations:**
814 + - **White in-group preference was framed as discriminatory**, regardless of intent or context.
815 + - Dating preferences were interpreted as a **“reinforcement of racial hierarchies”**.
816 +
817 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
818 + - The study suggested **White women’s selectivity** stemmed from **cultural and structural advantages**, implying racial gatekeeping.
819 + - Did not critically examine **non-White preferences** for their own race.
820 +
821 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
822 + - 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.
823 + - **No racial preference was criticized except when it protected White boundaries.**
824 +{{/expandable}}
825 +
826 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
827 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
828 + - Large dataset from real-world dating profiles.
829 + - Provides rare insight into **gendered patterns of racial preference**.
830 +
831 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
832 + - **Frames personal preference as political discrimination** when expressed by White users.
833 + - **Fails to control for cultural compatibility, attraction patterns, or religious values.**
834 + - **Double standard** in analysis — **non-White selectivity is ignored or justified.**
835 +
836 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
837 + - Should distinguish **racial animus from in-group preference**.
838 + - Include **psychological, aesthetic, and cultural compatibility data**.
839 + - Apply **equal critical lens to all racial groups**, not just Whites.
840 +{{/expandable}}
841 +
842 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
843 +- Reinforces how CRT-aligned research pathologizes **White in-group dating preferences**.
844 +- Supports the claim that **White intimacy boundaries are uniquely scrutinized** and politicized.
845 +- Demonstrates how even non-political behavior (e.g., dating) is racialized when it involves Whites.
846 +{{/expandable}}
847 +
848 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
849 +1. Study how **dating preferences vary by upbringing, media influence, and culture**, not just race.
850 +2. Analyze **racial preferences across all groups** with equal rigor and skepticism.
851 +3. Examine the **mental health impact of stigmatizing in-group preference** among Whites.
852 +{{/expandable}}
853 +
854 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
855 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.ssresearch.2009.04.004.pdf]]
856 +{{/expandable}}
857 +{{/expandable}}
858 +
859 +
860 +{{expandable summary="Study: Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World"}}
861 +**Source:** *Journal of European Psychoanalysis*
862 +**Date of Publication:** *2009*
863 +**Author(s):** *Kristen Fink* *Jewish*))
864 +**Title:** *"Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World: Sexual relationships between black men and white women as a cause of decline"*
865 +**DOI:** *Unavailable – Psychoanalytic essay publication*
866 +**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sexuality, Psychoanalysis, Cultural Demoralization*
867 +
868 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
869 +1. **General Observations:**
870 + - This is a **psychoanalytic essay**, not an empirical study.
871 + - Uses **Freudian and Lacanian theory** to explore symbolic meanings of interracial sex.
872 + - Frames **Black male–White female pairings** as psychologically disruptive to the White male ego and Western civilization.
873 +
874 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
875 + - Positions **Black men as symbolic rivals** to emasculated Western (White) men.
876 + - **White women’s interracial attraction** is framed as rebellion or rejection of Western order.
877 +
878 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
879 + - The essay proposes that **sexual representation in media** is demoralizing to White culture.
880 + - Uses **high theory language** to justify what is ultimately an anti-White cultural narrative.
881 +{{/expandable}}
882 +
883 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
884 +1. **Primary Observations:**
885 + - **Interracial sexual dynamics** are framed as central to **Western decline**.
886 + - **White masculinity is portrayed as passive, obsolete, or neurotic** in contrast to hypermasculinized Blackness.
887 +
888 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
889 + - Suggests White men internalize emasculation through exposure to interracial symbolism.
890 + - Sees **cultural loss of confidence** in White society as stemming from racial-sexual symbolism.
891 +
892 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
893 + - Analyzes media tropes (e.g., interracial porn, pop culture) through the lens of psychoanalytic guilt and transgression.
894 + - Never critiques the **ideological project of glorifying Blackness at the expense of White identity**.
895 +{{/expandable}}
896 +
897 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
898 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
899 + - Reveals how **elite academic disciplines like psychoanalysis** are used to mask anti-White narratives in esoteric jargon.
900 + - Serves as **ideological evidence** of demoralization tactics embedded in cultural theory.
901 +
902 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
903 + - No empirical data, surveys, or statistical analysis — purely speculative.
904 + - **Does not critique hypersexualization of Black men** or the dehumanizing aspects of the fetish.
905 + - Assumes **White masculinity must passively accept its symbolic erasure** as psychoanalytically “natural.”
906 +
907 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
908 + - Include **perspectives from White men and women** on how these portrayals affect their psychological well-being.
909 + - Disentangle psychoanalytic theory from **racial guilt ideology**.
910 + - Explore **mutual respect-based frameworks** for interracial dynamics rather than ones rooted in humiliation or power symbolism.
911 +{{/expandable}}
912 +
913 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
914 +- Illustrates how **race, sex, and culture are manipulated to undermine White self-perception**.
915 +- Demonstrates how **academic elites frame White decline as psychologically necessary or deserved**.
916 +- Provides ideological background for modern media trends that eroticize racial power imbalance.
917 +{{/expandable}}
918 +
919 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
920 +1. Analyze how psychoanalytic language is used to **justify racial inversion in cultural dominance**.
921 +2. Examine the **role of pornography in demoralization campaigns** targeting White men.
922 +3. Explore how elite journals create **ideological cover for overt anti-White sentiment**.
923 +{{/expandable}}
924 +
925 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
926 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.Fink_Black_Penis_Demoralization.pdf]]
927 +{{/expandable}}
928 +{{/expandable}}
929 +
930 +
650 650  {{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"}}
651 651  **Source:** *JAMA Network Open*
652 652  **Date of Publication:** *2020*
... ... @@ -1122,66 +1122,138 @@
1122 1122  
1123 1123  = Whiteness & White Guilt =
1124 1124  
1406 +{{expandable summary="Study: Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"}}
1407 +**Source:** *Psychological Science*
1408 +**Date of Publication:** *2014*
1409 +**Author(s):** *Caleb E. Lai, Anthony G. Greenwald, et al.*
1410 +**Title:** *"Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"*
1411 +**DOI:** [10.1177/0956797614535812](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535812)
1412 +**Subject Matter:** *Implicit Bias, Racial Psychology, Psychological Conditioning*
1413 +
1414 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1415 +1. **General Observations:**
1416 + - Tested **17 different interventions** across **6,321 participants**, all measured via IAT (Implicit Association Test).
1417 + - Focused exclusively on reducing **pro-White, anti-Black preferences** — no reciprocal testing on anti-White bias.
1418 +
1419 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1420 + - Educational and exposure-based interventions (e.g., multiculturalism, egalitarian messaging) failed to reduce bias significantly.
1421 + - Most effective short-term results came from **trauma-based or emotionally coercive interventions**.
1422 +
1423 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1424 + - 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.
1425 + - Effects of even the most extreme interventions **dissipated within 24–72 hours**, with no long-term behavioral change.
1426 +{{/expandable}}
1427 +
1428 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1429 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1430 + - The interventions that produced the most dramatic IAT changes used **emotionally graphic narratives** depicting Whites as violent aggressors and Blacks as saviors.
1431 + - Merely showing positive Black images or promoting egalitarian values had minimal effect on implicit associations.
1432 +
1433 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1434 + - 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.
1435 + - 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.
1436 +
1437 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1438 + - 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.
1439 + - The study was **cited by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)** to justify DEI-aligned policy recommendations.
1440 +{{/expandable}}
1441 +
1442 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1443 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1444 + - Large sample size and systematic comparison across diverse intervention types.
1445 + - Clearly shows that **implicit preference is resilient** and not easily changed by education or exposure alone.
1446 +
1447 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1448 + - The most “effective” methods **relied on emotional manipulation, not persuasion or evidence**.
1449 + - Assumes **natural in-group preference is pathological** when expressed by White subjects but makes no effort to test other groups.
1450 + - **Zero attention to pro-Black or anti-White bias** — only White attitudes are pathologized.
1451 +
1452 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1453 + - Test the **psychological harm** and ethical implications of using graphic racial trauma to coerce attitude change.
1454 + - Include interventions that **strengthen ingroup empathy** without demonizing other groups.
1455 + - Disaggregate bias by **class, region, and individual experience**, rather than racially reducing all bias to “Whiteness.”
1456 +{{/expandable}}
1457 +
1458 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1459 +- Provides direct evidence that **DEI-style implicit bias training** is based on emotionally abusive and **anti-White psychological framing**.
1460 +- Shows how **social science selectively targets Whites for attitude correction**, often using fictionalized racial trauma scenarios.
1461 +- Demonstrates that even extreme interventions **fail to achieve long-term change**, undermining the scientific justification for such policies.
1462 +{{/expandable}}
1463 +
1464 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1465 +1. Investigate **implicit bias training outcomes** in real-world institutional settings.
1466 +2. Study **the ethical limits of psychological reprogramming** in DEI policies.
1467 +3. Explore **natural ingroup preference across all races** using morally neutral frameworks.
1468 +{{/expandable}}
1469 +
1470 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1471 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:lai2014.pdf]]
1472 +{{/expandable}}
1473 +{{/expandable}}
1474 +
1475 +
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*
1477 +**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1478 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1479 +**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1480 +**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1481 +**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1482 +**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**.
1486 + - Based on **47 athlete interviews**, cherry-picked from non-revenue Division I sports.
1487 + - 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.
1490 + - Attributes **White participation** in certain sports to "systemic racism", ignoring **self-selection, geography, and cultural affinity**.
1491 + - 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.
1494 + - White athletes are portrayed as **ignorant of their privilege**, a claim drawn entirely from CRT frameworks rather than behavior or outcome.
1495 + - **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.
1500 + - Frames **normal demographic patterns** (e.g., majority-White rosters in tennis or rowing) as "institutional whiteness".
1501 + - **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.
1504 + - White athletes are criticized for **lacking racial awareness**, reinforcing the moral framing of **Whiteness as inherently problematic**.
1505 + - **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**.
1508 + - Argues that college sports **reinforce racial hierarchy** without ever showing how White athletes benefit more than Black athletes.
1509 + - 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.
1514 + - Useful as a clear example of **how CRT ideologues weaponize demography** to frame White majority spaces as inherently suspect.
1515 + - 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.
1518 + - **Excludes revenue sports**, where Black athletes dominate by numbers, prestige, and compensation.
1519 + - **Fails to explain** how team composition emerges from voluntary participation, geography, or subcultural identity.
1520 + - 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**.
1523 + - Include **White athlete perspectives** without pre-framing them as racially naive or complicit.
1524 + - **Compare all sports**, including those where Black athletes thrive and lead.
1525 + - 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**.
1529 +- Demonstrates how **DEI-aligned research reframes benign patterns** as oppressive when White majorities are involved.
1530 +- Illustrates **anti-White academic framing** in environments where no institutional barrier exists.
1531 +- 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**.
1535 +1. Investigate **racial self-sorting and cultural affiliation** in athletic participation.
1536 +2. Compare **media framing of White-majority vs. Black-majority sports**.
1537 +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  
1545 +
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*
1547 +**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1548 +**Date of Publication:** *2016*
1549 +**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*
1551 +**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1552 +**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.
1556 + - Analyzed responses from **222 white medical students and residents**.
1557 + - Investigated belief in **false biological differences between Black and White people**.
1558 + - 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**.
1561 + - **50% of participants endorsed at least one false belief** (e.g., Black people have thicker skin or less sensitive nerve endings).
1562 + - 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**.
1565 + - Bias was **most prominent among first-year students**, diminishing slightly with experience.
1566 + - 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**.
1571 + - False biological beliefs were **strongly correlated with racial disparity** in pain assessment.
1572 + - 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.
1575 + - Medical students with **no false beliefs showed no treatment bias**.
1576 + - 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**.
1579 + - Fictional vignettes demonstrated that **misinformation about biology**, not systemic malice, led to unequal care.
1580 + - 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.
1585 + - Provides valuable insight into **how medical myths can affect judgment**.
1586 + - 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**.
1589 + - Fails to examine **bias affecting White patients**, including under-treatment of opioid dependence or mental health.
1590 + - Only focuses on one direction of disparity, treating **White patients as a control** rather than a population worthy of study.
1591 + - **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**.
1594 + - Include **comparison groups for all races**, not just a binary Black–White framework.
1595 + - Investigate **systemic neglect of poor rural White populations**, especially in Appalachia and the Midwest.
1596 + - 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**.
1600 +- Shows how **DEI-aligned narratives exploit limited findings** to vilify White professionals.
1601 +- Provides an example of a **legitimate medical education issue being repackaged as “racial bias.”**
1602 +- 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**.
1606 +1. Study whether **DEI training reduces false beliefs** or simply **induces White guilt**.
1607 +2. Investigate **biases against White rural patients**, especially regarding **opioid or pain management stigma**.
1608 +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  
1616 +
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*
1685 +**Source:** *Urban Studies*
1686 +**Date of Publication:** *2023*
1687 +**Author(s):** *Nina Glick Schiller, Jens Schneider, Ayşe Çağlar*
1688 +**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1689 +**DOI:** [10.1177/00420980231170057](https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231170057)
1690 +**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.
1694 + - Based on interviews with **White European residents** in three major European cities.
1695 + - 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.
1698 + - Interviewees were **overwhelmingly framed as obstacles** to multicultural harmony.
1699 + - 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.
1702 + - Claims that even positive civic participation by Whites may **“reinforce white privilege.”**
1703 + - 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.
1708 + - Argues that White natives, by simply existing and having a historical presence, **“shape urban inequality.”**
1709 + - 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**.
1712 + - Critiques White residents for seeking **cultural familiarity or demographic continuity.**
1713 + - 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**.
1716 + - Interviews frame **normal concerns about safety, schooling, or housing** as coded racism.
1717 + - 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.
1722 + - Reveals how **social scientists increasingly treat Whiteness itself as a problem.**
1723 + - 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**.
1726 + - **Completely ignores migrant-driven displacement** of working-class Whites.
1727 + - Makes **no attempt to understand White residents sympathetically**, only as barriers.
1728 + - 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**.
1731 + - Include **White perspectives without presuming guilt or fragility.**
1732 + - Disaggregate “White” by **class, locality, or experience** — not treat as a monolith.
1733 + - 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**.
1737 +- Demonstrates how **academic literature increasingly stigmatizes White presence** in urban life.
1738 +- Shows how **“diversity” is defined as the absence or silence of native populations.**
1739 +- 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**.
1743 +1. Study the **psychological impact of demographic displacement** on native European populations.
1744 +2. Examine **rising crime and social fragmentation** in “superdiverse” zones.
1745 +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]]
1749 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_00420980231170057.pdf]]
1390 1390  {{/expandable}}
1751 +{{/expandable}}
1391 1391  
1753 +
1392 1392  = Media =
1393 1393  
1394 1394  {{expandable summary="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic"}}
... ... @@ -1591,4 +1591,237 @@
1591 1591  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]
1592 1592  {{/expandable}}
1593 1593  {{/expandable}}
1956 +
1957 +{{expandable summary="Study: White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years"}}
1958 +Source: Journal of Advertising Research
1959 +Date of Publication: 2022
1960 +Author(s): Peter M. Lenk, Eric T. Bradlow, Randolph E. Bucklin, Sungeun (Clara) Kim
1961 +Title: "White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years: A Meta-Analysis"
1962 +DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2022-028
1963 +Subject Matter: Advertising Trends, Racial Representation, Cultural Shifts
1964 +
1965 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1966 +
1967 +**General Observations:**
1968 +
1969 +Meta-analysis of 74 studies conducted between 1955 and 2020 on racial representation in advertising.
1970 +
1971 +Sample included mostly White U.S. participants, with consistent tracking of their preferences.
1972 +
1973 +**Subgroup Analysis:**
1974 +
1975 +Found a steady increase in positive responses toward Black models/actors in ads by White viewers.
1976 +
1977 +Recent decades show equal or greater preference for Black faces compared to White ones.
1978 +
1979 +**Other Significant Data Points:**
1980 +
1981 +Study frames this shift as a positive move toward diversity, ignoring implications for displaced White cultural representation.
1982 +
1983 +No equivalent data was collected on Black or Hispanic attitudes toward White representation.
1594 1594  {{/expandable}}
1985 +
1986 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1987 +
1988 +**Primary Observations:**
1989 +
1990 +White Americans have become increasingly receptive or favorable toward Black figures in advertising, even over timeframes of widespread cultural change.
1991 +
1992 +These preferences held across product types, media formats, and ad genres.
1993 +
1994 +**Subgroup Trends:**
1995 +
1996 +Studies from the 1960s–1980s showed preference for in-group racial representation, which has dropped sharply for Whites in recent decades.
1997 +
1998 +The largest positive attitudinal shift occurred between 1995–2020, coinciding with major DEI and cultural programming trends.
1999 +
2000 +**Specific Case Analysis:**
2001 +
2002 +The authors position this as “progress,” but offer no critical reflection on the effects of displacing White imagery from national advertising narratives.
2003 +
2004 +Completely omits consumer preference studies in countries outside the U.S., especially in more homogeneous nations.
2005 +{{/expandable}}
2006 +
2007 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2008 +
2009 +**Strengths of the Study:**
2010 +
2011 +Large-scale dataset across decades provides a clear empirical view of long-term trends.
2012 +
2013 +Useful as a benchmark of how White American preferences have evolved under sociocultural pressure.
2014 +
2015 +**Limitations of the Study:**
2016 +
2017 +Fails to ask whether increasing diversity is consumer-driven or culturally imposed.
2018 +
2019 +Ignores the potential alienation or displacement of White cultural identity from mainstream advertising.
2020 +
2021 +Assumes “diverse equals better” without testing economic or emotional impact of those shifts.
2022 +
2023 +**Suggestions for Improvement:**
2024 +
2025 +Include non-White viewer reactions to all-White or traditional American imagery for balance.
2026 +
2027 +Test whether consumers notice racial proportions or experience fatigue from overcorrection.
2028 +
2029 +Explore regional or class-based variance among White viewers, not just aggregate averages.
2030 +{{/expandable}}
2031 +
2032 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2033 +
2034 +Demonstrates how White cultural imagery has been steadily replaced or downplayed in the public sphere.
2035 +
2036 +Useful for showing how marketing professionals and researchers frame White displacement as “progress.”
2037 +
2038 +Empirically supports the decline of White in-group preference — possibly due to reeducation, guilt framing, or media saturation.
2039 +{{/expandable}}
2040 +
2041 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2042 +
2043 +Study how overrepresentation of minorities in advertising compares to actual demographics.
2044 +
2045 +Examine whether consumers feel represented or alienated by identity-based marketing.
2046 +
2047 +Investigate the psychological and cultural impact of long-term demographic displacement in national advertising.
2048 +{{/expandable}}
2049 +
2050 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2051 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.2501_JAR-2022-028.pdf]]
2052 +{{/expandable}}
2053 +{{/expandable}}
2054 +
2055 +{{expandable summary="Study: Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"}}
2056 +**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2057 +**Date of Publication:** *2020*
2058 +**Author(s):** *John A. Banas, Lauren L. Miller, David A. Braddock, Sun Kyong Lee*
2059 +**Title:** *"Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"*
2060 +**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqz032](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz032)
2061 +**Subject Matter:** *Media Psychology, Prejudice Reduction, Intergroup Relations*
2062 +
2063 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2064 +1. **General Observations:**
2065 + - Aggregated **71 studies involving 27,000+ participants**.
2066 + - Focused on how **media portrayals of out-groups (primarily minorities)** affect attitudes among dominant in-groups (i.e., Whites).
2067 +
2068 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
2069 + - **Fictional entertainment** had stronger effects than news.
2070 + - **Positive portrayals of minorities** correlated with significant reductions in “prejudice”.
2071 +
2072 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
2073 + - Effects were stronger when minority characters were portrayed as **warm, competent, and morally relatable**.
2074 + - Contact was more effective when it mimicked **face-to-face friendship narratives**.
2075 +{{/expandable}}
2076 +
2077 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2078 +1. **Primary Observations:**
2079 + - Media is a **powerful tool for shaping racial attitudes**, capable of reducing “prejudice” without real-world contact.
2080 + - **Repeated exposure** to positive portrayals of minorities led to increased acceptance and reduced negative bias.
2081 +
2082 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2083 + - **White participants** were the primary targets of reconditioning.
2084 + - Minority participants were not studied in terms of **prejudice against Whites**.
2085 +
2086 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2087 + - “Parasocial” relationships with minority characters (TV/movie exposure) had comparable psychological effects to actual friendships.
2088 + - Media framing functioned as a **top-down mechanism for social engineering**, not just passive reflection of society.
2089 +{{/expandable}}
2090 +
2091 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2092 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2093 + - High-quality quantitative meta-analysis with clear design and robust statistical handling.
2094 + - Acknowledges **media’s ability to alter long-held social beliefs** without physical contact.
2095 +
2096 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2097 + - Only defines “prejudice” as **negative attitudes from Whites toward minorities** — no exploration of anti-White media narratives or bias.
2098 + - Ignores the effects of **overexposure to minority portrayals** on cultural alienation or backlash.
2099 + - Assumes **assimilation into DEI norms is inherently positive**, and any reluctance to accept them is “prejudice”.
2100 +
2101 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2102 + - Study reciprocal dynamics — how **minority media portrayals impact attitudes toward Whites**.
2103 + - Investigate whether constant valorization of minorities leads to **resentment, guilt, or political disengagement** among White viewers.
2104 + - Analyze **media saturation effects**, especially in multicultural propaganda and corporate DEI messaging.
2105 +{{/expandable}}
2106 +
2107 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2108 +- Provides **direct evidence** that media is being used to **reshape racial attitudes** through emotional, parasocial contact.
2109 +- Reinforces concern that **“tolerance” is engineered via asymmetric emotional exposure**, not organic consensus.
2110 +- Useful for documenting how **Whiteness is often treated as a bias to be corrected**, not a culture to be respected.
2111 +{{/expandable}}
2112 +
2113 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2114 +1. Investigate **reverse parasocial effects** — how negative portrayals of White men affect self-perception and mental health.
2115 +2. Study how **mass entertainment normalizes demographic shifts** and silences native concerns.
2116 +3. Compare effects of **Western vs. non-Western media systems** in promoting diversity narratives.
2117 +{{/expandable}}
2118 +
2119 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2120 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf]]
2121 +{{/expandable}}
2122 +{{/expandable}}
2123 +
2124 +
2125 +{{expandable summary="Study: Cultural Voyeurism – A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"}}
2126 +**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2127 +**Date of Publication:** *2018*
2128 +**Author(s):** *Osei Appiah*
2129 +**Title:** *"Cultural Voyeurism: A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"*
2130 +**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
2131 +**Subject Matter:** *Intergroup contact, racial stereotypes, media, identity formation*
2132 +
2133 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2134 +1. **No empirical dataset** — this is a theoretical framework paper, not a quantitative study.
2135 +2. **Heavily cites prior empirical work**, including:
2136 + - Czopp & Monteith (2006) on “complimentary stereotypes”
2137 + - Armstrong et al. (1992), Entman & Rojecki (2000) on media distortion of race
2138 + - Pettigrew et al. (2011) on intergroup contact
2139 +
2140 +3. **Statistical implications:** Repeatedly emphasizes the role of media in shaping racial beliefs when direct interracial contact is absent.
2141 +{{/expandable}}
2142 +
2143 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2144 +1. **Primary Observations:**
2145 + - Defines *cultural voyeurism* as the process of using media to observe and learn about other racial/ethnic groups.
2146 + - Claims it can both reinforce stereotypes and reduce prejudice depending on context.
2147 + - Suggests that Whites’ fascination with Black culture (e.g., hip-hop, athleticism) is a driver of empathy and improved race relations.
2148 +
2149 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2150 + - White youth are singled out as cultural voyeurs increasingly emulating Black identity for social cachet (“coolness”).
2151 + - Positive media portrayals of Blacks (e.g., in entertainment) said to reduce racial bias.
2152 +
2153 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2154 + - No case study provided, but mentions “Duck Dynasty” and “hip-hop culture” as stereotyped White/Black identity constructs respectively.
2155 +{{/expandable}}
2156 +
2157 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2158 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2159 + - Recognizes media’s dual role in shaping intergroup perception.
2160 + - Accurately captures the obsession with racial “coolness” as a social phenomenon.
2161 +
2162 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2163 + - Frames White identification with Black culture as inherently progressive, ignoring issues of **anti-White displacement**.
2164 + - Treats *positive stereotypes of minorities* (e.g., athleticism, musicality) as meaningful substitutes for structural reality.
2165 + - Lacks any meaningful inquiry into *reverse cultural voyeurism* (i.e., non-Whites voyeuristically consuming and appropriating White identity or values).
2166 +
2167 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2168 + - Should confront whether “cultural voyeurism” ultimately erodes group boundaries and majority cultural integrity.
2169 + - Needs empirical validation of claims.
2170 + - Avoids uncomfortable realities about how White identity is increasingly stigmatized in media — which undermines genuine empathy or parity.
2171 +{{/expandable}}
2172 +
2173 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2174 +- Helps explain how **media conditioning** primes young Whites to *admire, emulate, and eventually submit* to Black cultural dominance.
2175 +- 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.
2176 +- Useful in chapters/sections covering cultural appropriation *in reverse* — not by Whites, but **of Whiteness** by outsiders for critique and exploitation.
2177 +{{/expandable}}
2178 +
2179 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2180 +1. Are there longitudinal studies showing cultural voyeurism weakening in-group preference among Whites?
2181 +2. Does this phenomenon correspond to decreased fertility, civic participation, or political alignment with group interest?
2182 +3. How do non-Western societies handle voyeuristic consumption of majority culture — do they permit or punish it?
2183 +{{/expandable}}
2184 +
2185 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2186 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Cultural Voyeurism A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Intera.pdf]]
2187 +{{/expandable}}
2188 +{{/expandable}}
2189 +
Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +472.9 KB
Content
lai2014.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +15.4 MB
Content
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