0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

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

From version 110.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 02:53
Change comment: Uploaded new attachment "lenk-et-al-white-americans-preference-for-black-people-in-advertising-has-increased-in-the-past-66-years-a-meta-analysis.pdf", version 1.1
To version 124.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/21 05:22
Change comment: Attachment moved to xwiki:Main Categories.Science & Research.Research at a Glance.Studies\: Crime and Substance Abuse.WebHome.

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -647,7 +647,440 @@
647 647  
648 648  = Dating =
649 649  
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"}}
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 +{{expandable summary="
720 +
721 +
722 +Study: “A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"}}
723 +**Source:** *Sociology of Race and Ethnicity*
724 +**Date of Publication:** *2020*
725 +**Author(s):** *Andrew R. Flores and Ariela Schachter*
726 +**Title:** *"“A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"*
727 +**DOI:** [10.1177/2332649219871232](https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649219871232)
728 +**Subject Matter:** *Interracial Dating, Racial Stereotyping, Online Behavior*
729 +
730 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
731 +1. **General Observations:**
732 + - Used **experimental survey data** from a nationally representative sample (N = 1,070).
733 + - Participants evaluated hypothetical dating profiles of White individuals who expressed interest in Black, Latino, or Asian partners.
734 +
735 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
736 + - **White men interested in Black women** were rated as **less cultured, more aggressive, and lower class**.
737 + - White women interested in Black men were **viewed as less intelligent and more promiscuous**.
738 + - **Interest in Asian partners** did not carry the same negative stereotypes; in some cases, it improved perceived desirability.
739 +
740 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
741 + - **Latino partners** were seen more neutrally, though men who dated them were seen as more “dominant.”
742 + - Across the board, **Whites who dated within their race were viewed most favorably**.
743 +{{/expandable}}
744 +
745 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
746 +1. **Primary Observations:**
747 + - Interracial daters—especially those dating Black individuals—are **subject to negative assumptions** about intelligence, class, and morality.
748 + - Stereotypes persist even in **hypothetical online contexts**, showing deep cultural associations.
749 +
750 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
751 + - White men who prefer Black women face **masculinity-linked stigma**, often tied to “urban” or “ghetto” tropes.
752 + - White women dating Black men are **framed as sexually deviant or socially undesirable**, particularly by other Whites.
753 +
754 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
755 + - The most negatively perceived pairing was **White woman/Black man**, reinforcing long-standing cultural anxieties.
756 + - Respondents judged interracial daters not just by race but by **projected cultural assimilation or rejection**.
757 +{{/expandable}}
758 +
759 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
760 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
761 + - Reveals **latent racial boundaries** in contemporary dating preferences.
762 + - Uses **controlled experimental design** to expose socially unacceptable but real biases.
763 +
764 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
765 + - Relies on **self-reported reactions to profiles**, not real-world dating behavior.
766 + - **Fails to analyze anti-White framing** in the assumptions about White participants who prefer other races.
767 + - Assumes stigma is irrational without investigating **rational in-group preference or cultural concerns**.
768 +
769 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
770 + - Include **reverse scenarios** (e.g., Black or Latino individuals expressing preference for Whites).
771 + - Examine how **media portrayal of interracial couples** influences perception and desirability.
772 + - Account for **class and education overlaps** that could explain perceived traits.
773 +{{/expandable}}
774 +
775 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
776 +- Highlights how **Whites who date outside their race—particularly with Blacks—are pathologized**, even within their own community.
777 +- Shows that **Whiteness is penalized** when paired with non-Whiteness, reinforcing social costs for racial mixing.
778 +- Useful for understanding **how stigma around interracial relationships is unevenly applied**, with anti-White moral overtones.
779 +{{/expandable}}
780 +
781 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
782 +1. Study how **in-group dating preferences differ across races** and are morally interpreted.
783 +2. Investigate how **class and education** affect perceptions of interracial relationships.
784 +3. Examine whether **Whites are disproportionately judged** when deviating from group norms vs. other races.
785 +{{/expandable}}
786 +
787 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
788 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_2332649219871232.pdf]]
789 +{{/expandable}}
790 +{{/expandable}}
791 +
792 +{{expandable summary="
793 +
794 +
795 +Study: E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"}}
796 +**Source:** *National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)*
797 +**Date of Publication:** *2024*
798 +**Author(s):** *Umit Gurun, Daniel Solomon*
799 +**Title:** *"E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"*
800 +**DOI:** [10.3386/w31978](https://doi.org/10.3386/w31978)
801 +**Subject Matter:** *Demography, Social Cohesion, Diversity Effects on Fertility*
802 +
803 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
804 +1. **General Observations:**
805 + - Used large-scale demographic, economic, and census data across **1,800+ U.S. counties**.
806 + - Found a **strong negative correlation between local diversity and White fertility rates**.
807 + - Quantified impact: a 1 SD increase in ethnic diversity leads to a **4–6% drop in birth rates**.
808 +
809 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
810 + - Decline most pronounced among **non-Hispanic Whites**, especially in suburban and semi-urban areas.
811 + - **No significant birth rate drop observed among Hispanic or Black populations** under the same conditions.
812 +
813 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
814 + - Diversity increases linked to **reduced marriage rates**, especially among Whites.
815 + - Authors suggest **“erosion of social cohesion and trust”** as mediating factors.
816 +{{/expandable}}
817 +
818 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
819 +1. **Primary Observations:**
820 + - Ethnic diversity significantly **reduces total fertility rates**, independent of economic or educational variables.
821 + - **Social fragmentation** and perceived dissimilarity drive fertility suppression.
822 +
823 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
824 + - White populations respond to diversity with lower family formation.
825 + - **Cultural distance** and loss of shared norms are possible causes.
826 +
827 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
828 + - High-diversity metro areas saw steepest declines in White birth rates over the past two decades.
829 + - Study challenges mainstream assumptions that diversity has neutral or positive demographic effects.
830 +{{/expandable}}
831 +
832 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
833 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
834 + - Offers **quantitative backing for claims long treated as taboo** in public discourse.
835 + - Applies **robust statistical methods** and cross-validates with multiple data sources.
836 +
837 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
838 + - Avoids discussing **racial preference, ethnic tension, or cultural conflict** explicitly.
839 + - Authors stop short of acknowledging **the demographic replacement implication** of sustained low White fertility.
840 +
841 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
842 + - Include **qualitative data on reasons for delayed or avoided parenthood** among Whites in diverse areas.
843 + - Examine **media messaging and policy environments** that could accelerate these trends.
844 +{{/expandable}}
845 +
846 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
847 +- Confirms a **central premise** of the White demographic decline thesis.
848 +- Demonstrates that **diversity is not neutral** but **functionally suppressive to White reproduction**.
849 +- Offers solid **empirical support against the utopian assumptions** of multiculturalism.
850 +{{/expandable}}
851 +
852 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
853 +1. Examine **fertility effects of diversity in European countries** experiencing immigration-driven change.
854 +2. Study **how school demographics and crime perception** affect reproductive decision-making.
855 +3. Explore **policy frameworks that support demographic stability for founding populations**.
856 +{{/expandable}}
857 +
858 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
859 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:12.Gurun_Solomon_Diversity_BirthRates.pdf]]
860 +{{/expandable}}
861 +{{/expandable}}
862 +
863 +{{expandable summary="
864 +
865 +
866 +Study: The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"}}
867 +**Source:** *Porn Studies*
868 +**Date of Publication:** *2015*
869 +**Author(s):** *Noah Tsika*
870 +**Title:** *"The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"*
871 +**DOI:** [10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389](https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389)
872 +**Subject Matter:** *Pornography Studies, Race and Sexuality, Cultural Critique*
873 +
874 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
875 +1. **General Observations:**
876 + - This is a **qualitative content analysis** of gonzo pornography, particularly interracial porn involving Black men and White women.
877 + - The author reviews **select films, not a dataset**, using them to extrapolate broad cultural claims about race and sexuality.
878 +
879 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
880 + - Claims that **interracial porn “others” and dehumanizes Black men**, yet selectively **frames Black male sexual aggression as liberatory**.
881 + - The author accuses White male consumers of **fetishizing Black men** as both threats and tools for their own “colonial guilt.”
882 +
883 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
884 + - No empirical evidence, just interpretive readings of scenes and film dialogue.
885 + - Repeatedly criticizes **White directors and actors** as complicit in perpetuating “White supremacy through porn.”
886 +{{/expandable}}
887 +
888 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
889 +1. **Primary Observations:**
890 + - Argues that **gonzo interracial porn functions as racial propaganda**, reinforcing White guilt while commodifying Black masculinity.
891 + - Portrays White women as willing participants in a fantasy of racial domination that allegedly “liberates” Black men.
892 +
893 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
894 + - White male viewers are pathologized as both sexually repressed and voyeuristically complicit in anti-Black racism.
895 + - Black male performers are framed as both victims of racial commodification and **agents of resistance through hypersexuality**.
896 +
897 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
898 + - 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.
899 + - The narrative treats **racially charged sexual violence as deconstructive**, only when it reverses traditional racial dynamics.
900 +{{/expandable}}
901 +
902 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
903 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
904 + - Useful in showcasing how **critical race theory invades even the most apolitical domains** (porn consumption) and turns them into race war battlegrounds.
905 + - Offers insight into how **White heterosexuality is recoded as colonialism** in activist academia.
906 +
907 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
908 + - **No statistical basis**, relies entirely on biased interpretive analysis of fringe media.
909 + - Presumes **intent and audience motivation** without surveys, viewership data, or cross-cultural comparison.
910 + - Treats Black aggression as empowering and White sexuality as inherently oppressive — a double standard.
911 +
912 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
913 + - Include comparative data on how different racial groups are portrayed in pornography across genres.
914 + - Analyze how **minority-run porn studios frame interracial themes** — not just White-directed media.
915 + - Address how racial fetishization **harms all groups**, not just Black men.
916 +{{/expandable}}
917 +
918 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
919 +- Exemplifies how **racialized sexual narratives are reinterpreted to indict White identity**, even in consumer entertainment.
920 +- Shows how **DEI and CRT frameworks are applied to pornographic material** to pathologize White maleness while sanctifying non-White hypermasculinity.
921 +- Highlights the **academic bias that treats transgressive content as empowering when it serves anti-White narratives**.
922 +{{/expandable}}
923 +
924 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
925 +1. Study how **interracial porn narratives differ when produced by non-White vs. White directors**.
926 +2. Examine **how racial power is portrayed in same-sex vs. heterosexual interracial porn**.
927 +3. Investigate whether the **fetishization of Black masculinity fuels unrealistic expectations and destructive stereotypes** for both Black and White men.
928 +{{/expandable}}
929 +
930 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
931 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Dinest - The White Man's Burden Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity.pdf]]
932 +{{/expandable}}
933 +{{/expandable}}
934 +
935 +{{expandable summary="
936 +
937 +
938 +Study: Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"}}
939 +**Source:** *Social Science Research*
940 +**Date of Publication:** *2009*
941 +**Author(s):** *Cynthia Feliciano, Belinda Robnett, Golnaz Komaie*
942 +**Title:** *"Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"*
943 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004)
944 +**Subject Matter:** *Online Dating, Racial Preferences, CRT Framing of White Intimacy*
945 +
946 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
947 +1. **General Observations:**
948 + - Based on data from **Love@aol.com**, analyzing **over 6,000 profiles** from California.
949 + - The study investigated **racial preferences listed explicitly** in dating profiles.
950 +
951 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
952 + - **White women were least likely to express openness to interracial dating**, particularly with Black and Asian men.
953 + - **White men also showed exclusion**, but were more open than White women.
954 +
955 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
956 + - The authors labeled preference for one’s own race as **“racial exclusion”**.
957 + - Profiles by non-White users expressing same-race preferences were **not similarly problematized**.
958 +{{/expandable}}
959 +
960 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
961 +1. **Primary Observations:**
962 + - **White in-group preference was framed as discriminatory**, regardless of intent or context.
963 + - Dating preferences were interpreted as a **“reinforcement of racial hierarchies”**.
964 +
965 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
966 + - The study suggested **White women’s selectivity** stemmed from **cultural and structural advantages**, implying racial gatekeeping.
967 + - Did not critically examine **non-White preferences** for their own race.
968 +
969 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
970 + - 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.
971 + - **No racial preference was criticized except when it protected White boundaries.**
972 +{{/expandable}}
973 +
974 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
975 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
976 + - Large dataset from real-world dating profiles.
977 + - Provides rare insight into **gendered patterns of racial preference**.
978 +
979 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
980 + - **Frames personal preference as political discrimination** when expressed by White users.
981 + - **Fails to control for cultural compatibility, attraction patterns, or religious values.**
982 + - **Double standard** in analysis — **non-White selectivity is ignored or justified.**
983 +
984 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
985 + - Should distinguish **racial animus from in-group preference**.
986 + - Include **psychological, aesthetic, and cultural compatibility data**.
987 + - Apply **equal critical lens to all racial groups**, not just Whites.
988 +{{/expandable}}
989 +
990 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
991 +- Reinforces how CRT-aligned research pathologizes **White in-group dating preferences**.
992 +- Supports the claim that **White intimacy boundaries are uniquely scrutinized** and politicized.
993 +- Demonstrates how even non-political behavior (e.g., dating) is racialized when it involves Whites.
994 +{{/expandable}}
995 +
996 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
997 +1. Study how **dating preferences vary by upbringing, media influence, and culture**, not just race.
998 +2. Analyze **racial preferences across all groups** with equal rigor and skepticism.
999 +3. Examine the **mental health impact of stigmatizing in-group preference** among Whites.
1000 +{{/expandable}}
1001 +
1002 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1003 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.ssresearch.2009.04.004.pdf]]
1004 +{{/expandable}}
1005 +{{/expandable}}
1006 +
1007 +{{expandable summary="
1008 +
1009 +
1010 +Study: Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World"}}
1011 +**Source:** *Journal of European Psychoanalysis*
1012 +**Date of Publication:** *2009*
1013 +**Author(s):** *Kristen Fink* *Jewish*))
1014 +**Title:** *"Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World: Sexual relationships between black men and white women as a cause of decline"*
1015 +**DOI:** *Unavailable – Psychoanalytic essay publication*
1016 +**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sexuality, Psychoanalysis, Cultural Demoralization*
1017 +
1018 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1019 +1. **General Observations:**
1020 + - This is a **psychoanalytic essay**, not an empirical study.
1021 + - Uses **Freudian and Lacanian theory** to explore symbolic meanings of interracial sex.
1022 + - Frames **Black male–White female pairings** as psychologically disruptive to the White male ego and Western civilization.
1023 +
1024 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1025 + - Positions **Black men as symbolic rivals** to emasculated Western (White) men.
1026 + - **White women’s interracial attraction** is framed as rebellion or rejection of Western order.
1027 +
1028 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1029 + - The essay proposes that **sexual representation in media** is demoralizing to White culture.
1030 + - Uses **high theory language** to justify what is ultimately an anti-White cultural narrative.
1031 +{{/expandable}}
1032 +
1033 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1034 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1035 + - **Interracial sexual dynamics** are framed as central to **Western decline**.
1036 + - **White masculinity is portrayed as passive, obsolete, or neurotic** in contrast to hypermasculinized Blackness.
1037 +
1038 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1039 + - Suggests White men internalize emasculation through exposure to interracial symbolism.
1040 + - Sees **cultural loss of confidence** in White society as stemming from racial-sexual symbolism.
1041 +
1042 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1043 + - Analyzes media tropes (e.g., interracial porn, pop culture) through the lens of psychoanalytic guilt and transgression.
1044 + - Never critiques the **ideological project of glorifying Blackness at the expense of White identity**.
1045 +{{/expandable}}
1046 +
1047 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1048 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1049 + - Reveals how **elite academic disciplines like psychoanalysis** are used to mask anti-White narratives in esoteric jargon.
1050 + - Serves as **ideological evidence** of demoralization tactics embedded in cultural theory.
1051 +
1052 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1053 + - No empirical data, surveys, or statistical analysis — purely speculative.
1054 + - **Does not critique hypersexualization of Black men** or the dehumanizing aspects of the fetish.
1055 + - Assumes **White masculinity must passively accept its symbolic erasure** as psychoanalytically “natural.”
1056 +
1057 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1058 + - Include **perspectives from White men and women** on how these portrayals affect their psychological well-being.
1059 + - Disentangle psychoanalytic theory from **racial guilt ideology**.
1060 + - Explore **mutual respect-based frameworks** for interracial dynamics rather than ones rooted in humiliation or power symbolism.
1061 +{{/expandable}}
1062 +
1063 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1064 +- Illustrates how **race, sex, and culture are manipulated to undermine White self-perception**.
1065 +- Demonstrates how **academic elites frame White decline as psychologically necessary or deserved**.
1066 +- Provides ideological background for modern media trends that eroticize racial power imbalance.
1067 +{{/expandable}}
1068 +
1069 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1070 +1. Analyze how psychoanalytic language is used to **justify racial inversion in cultural dominance**.
1071 +2. Examine the **role of pornography in demoralization campaigns** targeting White men.
1072 +3. Explore how elite journals create **ideological cover for overt anti-White sentiment**.
1073 +{{/expandable}}
1074 +
1075 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1076 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.Fink_Black_Penis_Demoralization.pdf]]
1077 +{{/expandable}}
1078 +{{/expandable}}
1079 +
1080 +{{expandable summary="
1081 +
1082 +
1083 +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*
653 653  **Author(s):** *Ueda P, Mercer CH, Ghaznavi C, Herbenick D.*
... ... @@ -1122,133 +1122,283 @@
1122 1122  
1123 1123  = Whiteness & White Guilt =
1124 1124  
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*
1558 +{{expandable summary="Study: Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"}}
1559 +**Source:** *Psychological Science*
1560 +**Date of Publication:** *2014*
1561 +**Author(s):** *Caleb E. Lai, Anthony G. Greenwald, et al.*
1562 +**Title:** *"Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"*
1563 +**DOI:** [10.1177/0956797614535812](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535812)
1564 +**Subject Matter:** *Implicit Bias, Racial Psychology, Psychological Conditioning*
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**.
1568 + - Tested **17 different interventions** across **6,321 participants**, all measured via IAT (Implicit Association Test).
1569 + - Focused exclusively on reducing **pro-White, anti-Black preferences** no reciprocal testing on anti-White bias.
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.
1572 + - Educational and exposure-based interventions (e.g., multiculturalism, egalitarian messaging) failed to reduce bias significantly.
1573 + - Most effective short-term results came from **trauma-based or emotionally coercive interventions**.
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.
1576 + - 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.
1577 + - Effects of even the most extreme interventions **dissipated within 24–72 hours**, with no long-term behavioral change.
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.
1582 + - The interventions that produced the most dramatic IAT changes used **emotionally graphic narratives** depicting Whites as violent aggressors and Blacks as saviors.
1583 + - Merely showing positive Black images or promoting egalitarian values had minimal effect on implicit associations.
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.
1586 + - 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.
1587 + - 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.
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**.
1590 + - 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.
1591 + - The study was **cited by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)** to justify DEI-aligned policy recommendations.
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.
1596 + - Large sample size and systematic comparison across diverse intervention types.
1597 + - Clearly shows that **implicit preference is resilient** and not easily changed by education or exposure alone.
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.
1600 + - The most “effective” methods **relied on emotional manipulation, not persuasion or evidence**.
1601 + - Assumes **natural in-group preference is pathological** when expressed by White subjects but makes no effort to test other groups.
1602 + - **Zero attention to pro-Black or anti-White bias** — only White attitudes are pathologized.
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**.
1605 + - Test the **psychological harm** and ethical implications of using graphic racial trauma to coerce attitude change.
1606 + - Include interventions that **strengthen ingroup empathy** without demonizing other groups.
1607 + - Disaggregate bias by **class, region, and individual experience**, rather than racially reducing all bias to “Whiteness.”
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**.
1611 +- Provides direct evidence that **DEI-style implicit bias training** is based on emotionally abusive and **anti-White psychological framing**.
1612 +- Shows how **social science selectively targets Whites for attitude correction**, often using fictionalized racial trauma scenarios.
1613 +- Demonstrates that even extreme interventions **fail to achieve long-term change**, undermining the scientific justification for such policies.
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**.
1617 +1. Investigate **implicit bias training outcomes** in real-world institutional settings.
1618 +2. Study **the ethical limits of psychological reprogramming** in DEI policies.
1619 +3. Explore **natural ingroup preference across all races** using morally neutral frameworks. 
1185 1185  {{/expandable}}
1186 1186  
1187 1187  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1623 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:lai2014.pdf]]
1624 +{{/expandable}}
1625 +{{/expandable}}
1626 +
1627 +{{expandable summary="
1628 +
1629 +
1630 +Study: School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education"}}
1631 +**Source:** *Social Science Research Network (SSRN)*
1632 +**Date of Publication:** *2020*
1633 +**Author(s):** *Eric Kaufmann, David Goldberg*
1634 +**Title:** *"School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education"*
1635 +**DOI:** [10.2139/ssrn.3730517](https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3730517)
1636 +**Subject Matter:** *K–12 Education, CRT, Indoctrination, Teacher Training*
1637 +
1638 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1639 +1. **General Observations:**
1640 + - Surveyed **over 800 educators** and analyzed **curricula, training materials, and administrator communications**.
1641 + - Found that **CSJ ideology is deeply embedded in public school systems**, including charter and magnet schools.
1642 +
1643 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1644 + - Teachers reported being trained to believe **Whiteness = privilege + harm**, not just historical context.
1645 + - Administrators disproportionately **disciplined or suppressed dissenting White teachers or parents**.
1646 +
1647 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1648 + - **Majority of educators fear retribution** if they question CSJ orthodoxy.
1649 + - **Curriculum mandates racial self-critique** primarily for White students, often starting in elementary grades.
1650 +{{/expandable}}
1651 +
1652 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1653 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1654 + - CSJ ideology **functions as an implicit worldview**, not a neutral teaching tool.
1655 + - “Equity” in practice means **dismantling of perceived White dominance**, often through emotional manipulation of students.
1656 +
1657 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1658 + - White students and teachers report **feeling targeted or dehumanized** in diversity sessions.
1659 + - Minority students were often **placed in victim-centric identity frameworks**, reinforcing grievance politics.
1660 +
1661 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1662 + - In several documented districts, **student activities included “unlearning Whiteness” workshops**.
1663 + - One district mandated that teachers **“de-center White perspectives”** in all classroom subjects.
1664 +{{/expandable}}
1665 +
1666 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1667 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1668 + - One of the few empirical studies documenting **systemic ideological bias in education**.
1669 + - Strong evidentiary base drawn from **firsthand educator testimony** and training materials.
1670 +
1671 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1672 + - Study is based on **self-reported perceptions**, though many are substantiated with examples.
1673 + - Focus is primarily U.S.-centric; international parallels not explored.
1674 +
1675 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1676 + - Future studies could **quantify the academic and emotional impact** on White students.
1677 + - Comparative analysis with **non-CSJ schools** (e.g., classical models) would clarify causal impact.
1678 +{{/expandable}}
1679 +
1680 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1681 +- Documents how **CRT-aligned ideology disproportionately targets White students and teachers**.
1682 +- Confirms that **school choice fails to protect against ideological indoctrination** when CSJ is systemic.
1683 +- Supports the need for **explicitly anti-indoctrination educational frameworks** grounded in neutrality and merit.
1684 +{{/expandable}}
1685 +
1686 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1687 +1. Investigate **legal protections for students against compelled ideological speech**.
1688 +2. Study **alternatives to CSJ pedagogy**, such as classical liberal education or civic humanism.
1689 +3. Examine **psychological outcomes** of guilt-based racial framing among White children.
1690 +{{/expandable}}
1691 +
1692 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1693 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:11.Goldberg_Kaufmann_CSJ_Education_Impact.pdf]]
1694 +{{/expandable}}
1695 +{{/expandable}}
1696 +
1697 +{{expandable summary="
1698 +
1699 +
1700 +Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}}
1701 +**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1702 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1703 +**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1704 +**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1705 +**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1706 +**Subject Matter:** *Critical Race Theory, Sports Sociology, Anti-White Institutional Framing*
1707 +
1708 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1709 +1. **General Observations:**
1710 + - Based on **47 athlete interviews**, cherry-picked from non-revenue Division I sports.
1711 + - The study claims **“segregation”**, but presents no evidence of actual exclusion or policy bias — just demographic imbalance.
1712 +
1713 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1714 + - Attributes **White participation** in certain sports to "systemic racism", ignoring **self-selection, geography, and cultural affinity**.
1715 + - Claims White athletes are “protected” from race discussions — but never engages with **Black overrepresentation in revenue sports**.
1716 +
1717 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1718 + - White athletes are portrayed as **ignorant of their privilege**, a claim drawn entirely from CRT frameworks rather than behavior or outcome.
1719 + - **No empirical data** is offered on policy, scholarship distribution, or team selection criteria.
1720 +{{/expandable}}
1721 +
1722 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1723 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1724 + - Frames **normal demographic patterns** (e.g., majority-White rosters in tennis or rowing) as "institutional whiteness".
1725 + - **Ignores the structural dominance** of Black athletes in high-profile revenue sports like football and basketball.
1726 +
1727 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1728 + - White athletes are criticized for **lacking racial awareness**, reinforcing the moral framing of **Whiteness as inherently problematic**.
1729 + - **Cultural preference, individual merit, and athletic subculture** are all excluded from consideration.
1730 +
1731 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1732 + - Argues that college sports **reinforce racial hierarchy** without ever showing how White athletes benefit more than Black athletes.
1733 + - Offers **no comparative analysis** of scholarships, graduation rates, or media portrayal by race.
1734 +{{/expandable}}
1735 +
1736 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1737 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1738 + - Useful as a clear example of **how CRT ideologues weaponize demography** to frame White majority spaces as inherently suspect.
1739 + - Shows how **academic literature systematically avoids symmetrical analysis** when outcomes favor White participants.
1740 +
1741 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1742 + - **Excludes revenue sports**, where Black athletes dominate by numbers, prestige, and compensation.
1743 + - **Fails to explain** how team composition emerges from voluntary participation, geography, or subcultural identity.
1744 + - Treats **racial imbalance as proof of racism**, bypassing merit, interest, or socioeconomic context.
1745 +
1746 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1747 + - Include **White athlete perspectives** without pre-framing them as racially naive or complicit.
1748 + - **Compare all sports**, including those where Black athletes thrive and lead.
1749 + - Remove CRT framing and **evaluate outcomes empirically**, not ideologically.
1750 +{{/expandable}}
1751 +
1752 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1753 +- Demonstrates how **DEI-aligned research reframes benign patterns** as oppressive when White majorities are involved.
1754 +- Illustrates **anti-White academic framing** in environments where no institutional barrier exists.
1755 +- Provides a concrete example of how **CRT avoids acknowledging Black dominance in elite spaces** (revenue athletics).
1756 +{{/expandable}}
1757 +
1758 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1759 +1. Investigate **racial self-sorting and cultural affiliation** in athletic participation.
1760 +2. Compare **media framing of White-majority vs. Black-majority sports**.
1761 +3. Study **how CRT narratives distort athletic merit and demographic outcomes**.
1762 +{{/expandable}}
1763 +
1764 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1188 1188  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1037_dhe0000140.pdf]]
1189 1189  {{/expandable}}
1190 1190  {{/expandable}}
1191 1191  
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*
1769 +{{expandable summary="
1770 +
1771 +
1772 +Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
1773 +**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1774 +**Date of Publication:** *2016*
1775 +**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*
1777 +**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1778 +**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.
1782 + - Analyzed responses from **222 white medical students and residents**.
1783 + - Investigated belief in **false biological differences between Black and White people**.
1784 + - 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**.
1787 + - **50% of participants endorsed at least one false belief** (e.g., Black people have thicker skin or less sensitive nerve endings).
1788 + - 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**.
1791 + - Bias was **most prominent among first-year students**, diminishing slightly with experience.
1792 + - 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**.
1797 + - False biological beliefs were **strongly correlated with racial disparity** in pain assessment.
1798 + - 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.
1801 + - Medical students with **no false beliefs showed no treatment bias**.
1802 + - 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**.
1805 + - Fictional vignettes demonstrated that **misinformation about biology**, not systemic malice, led to unequal care.
1806 + - 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.
1811 + - Provides valuable insight into **how medical myths can affect judgment**.
1812 + - 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**.
1815 + - Fails to examine **bias affecting White patients**, including under-treatment of opioid dependence or mental health.
1816 + - Only focuses on one direction of disparity, treating **White patients as a control** rather than a population worthy of study.
1817 + - **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**.
1820 + - Include **comparison groups for all races**, not just a binary Black–White framework.
1821 + - Investigate **systemic neglect of poor rural White populations**, especially in Appalachia and the Midwest.
1822 + - 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**.
1826 +- Shows how **DEI-aligned narratives exploit limited findings** to vilify White professionals.
1827 +- Provides an example of a **legitimate medical education issue being repackaged as “racial bias.”**
1828 +- 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**.
1832 +1. Study whether **DEI training reduces false beliefs** or simply **induces White guilt**.
1833 +2. Investigate **biases against White rural patients**, especially regarding **opioid or pain management stigma**.
1834 +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"}}
... ... @@ -1256,7 +1256,10 @@
1256 1256  {{/expandable}}
1257 1257  {{/expandable}}
1258 1258  
1259 -{{expandable summary="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}}
1842 +{{expandable summary="
1843 +
1844 +
1845 +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*
1262 1262  **Author(s):** *Anne Case, Angus Deaton*
... ... @@ -1324,72 +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*
1913 +**Source:** *Urban Studies*
1914 +**Date of Publication:** *2023*
1915 +**Author(s):** *Nina Glick Schiller, Jens Schneider, Ayşe Çağlar*
1916 +**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1917 +**DOI:** [10.1177/00420980231170057](https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231170057)
1918 +**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.
1922 + - Based on interviews with **White European residents** in three major European cities.
1923 + - 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.
1926 + - Interviewees were **overwhelmingly framed as obstacles** to multicultural harmony.
1927 + - 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.
1930 + - Claims that even positive civic participation by Whites may **“reinforce white privilege.”**
1931 + - 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.
1936 + - Argues that White natives, by simply existing and having a historical presence, **“shape urban inequality.”**
1937 + - 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**.
1940 + - Critiques White residents for seeking **cultural familiarity or demographic continuity.**
1941 + - 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**.
1944 + - Interviews frame **normal concerns about safety, schooling, or housing** as coded racism.
1945 + - 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.
1950 + - Reveals how **social scientists increasingly treat Whiteness itself as a problem.**
1951 + - 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**.
1954 + - **Completely ignores migrant-driven displacement** of working-class Whites.
1955 + - Makes **no attempt to understand White residents sympathetically**, only as barriers.
1956 + - 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**.
1959 + - Include **White perspectives without presuming guilt or fragility.**
1960 + - Disaggregate “White” by **class, locality, or experience** — not treat as a monolith.
1961 + - 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**.
1965 +- Demonstrates how **academic literature increasingly stigmatizes White presence** in urban life.
1966 +- Shows how **“diversity” is defined as the absence or silence of native populations.**
1967 +- 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**.
1971 +1. Study the **psychological impact of demographic displacement** on native European populations.
1972 +2. Examine **rising crime and social fragmentation** in “superdiverse” zones.
1973 +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]]
1977 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_00420980231170057.pdf]]
1390 1390  {{/expandable}}
1391 1391  {{/expandable}}
1392 1392  
1981 +
1393 1393  = Media =
1394 1394  
1395 1395  {{expandable summary="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic"}}
... ... @@ -1594,107 +1594,231 @@
1594 1594  {{/expandable}}
1595 1595  
1596 1596  {{expandable summary="Study: White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years"}}
1597 -Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
1598 -Date of Publication: February 20, 2024
1599 -Author(s): Julia Diana Lenk, Jochen Hartmann, Henrik Sattler
2186 +Source: Journal of Advertising Research
2187 +Date of Publication: 2022
2188 +Author(s): Peter M. Lenk, Eric T. Bradlow, Randolph E. Bucklin, Sungeun (Clara) Kim
1600 1600  Title: "White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years: A Meta-Analysis"
1601 -DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2307505121
1602 -Subject Matter: Advertising, Race, Consumer Behavior, Meta-Analysis
2190 +DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2022-028
2191 +Subject Matter: Advertising Trends, Racial Representation, Cultural Shifts
1603 1603  
1604 1604  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2194 +**General Observations:**
1605 1605  
1606 -Study Scale:
2196 +Meta-analysis of 74 studies conducted between 1955 and 2020 on racial representation in advertising.
1607 1607  
1608 -62 studies, 332 effect sizes, 10,186 participants (Black and White Americans).
2198 +Sample included mostly White U.S. participants, with consistent tracking of their preferences.
1609 1609  
1610 -Covers the period 1956–2022.
2200 +**Subgroup Analysis:**
1611 1611  
1612 -Cohen’s d Effect Sizes (Model-Free):
2202 +Found a steady increase in positive responses toward Black models/actors in ads by White viewers.
1613 1613  
1614 -Black viewers: d = 0.50 → strong, consistent ingroup preference for Black models.
2204 +Recent decades show equal or greater preference for Black faces compared to White ones.
1615 1615  
1616 -White viewers: d = –0.08 overall; pre-2000: d = –0.16 (ingroup); post-2000: d = +0.02 (outgroup leaning).
2206 +**Other Significant Data Points:**
1617 1617  
1618 -Regression Findings:
2208 +Study frames this shift as a positive move toward diversity, ignoring implications for displaced White cultural representation.
1619 1619  
1620 -White viewers’ preference for Black models increases by ~0.0128 d/year since 1956 (p < 0.05).
2210 +No equivalent data was collected on Black or Hispanic attitudes toward White representation.
2211 +{{/expandable}}
1621 1621  
1622 -By 2022, White viewers showed positive directional preference for Black endorsers.
2213 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2214 +**Primary Observations:**
1623 1623  
1624 -Black viewer preferences remained stable across the 66 years.
2216 +White Americans have become increasingly receptive or favorable toward Black figures in advertising, even over timeframes of widespread cultural change.
2217 +
2218 +These preferences held across product types, media formats, and ad genres.
2219 +
2220 +**Subgroup Trends:**
2221 +
2222 +Studies from the 1960s–1980s showed preference for in-group racial representation, which has dropped sharply for Whites in recent decades.
2223 +
2224 +The largest positive attitudinal shift occurred between 1995–2020, coinciding with major DEI and cultural programming trends.
2225 +
2226 +**Specific Case Analysis:**
2227 +
2228 +The authors position this as “progress,” but offer no critical reflection on the effects of displacing White imagery from national advertising narratives.
2229 +
2230 +Completely omits consumer preference studies in countries outside the U.S., especially in more homogeneous nations.
1625 1625  {{/expandable}}
1626 1626  
1627 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2233 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2234 +**Strengths of the Study:**
1628 1628  
1629 -Primary Observations:
2236 +Large-scale dataset across decades provides a clear empirical view of long-term trends.
1630 1630  
1631 -Ingroup favoritism is evident: Black viewers consistently prefer Black endorsers.
2238 +Useful as a benchmark of how White American preferences have evolved under sociocultural pressure.
1632 1632  
1633 -White viewers’ preferences have shifted significantly over time toward favoring Black endorsers.
2240 +**Limitations of the Study:**
1634 1634  
1635 -Temporal Trends:
2242 +Fails to ask whether increasing diversity is consumer-driven or culturally imposed.
1636 1636  
1637 -Turning point: Around 2002–2003, White viewers began showing a positive (though small) preference for Black endorsers.
2244 +Ignores the potential alienation or displacement of White cultural identity from mainstream advertising.
1638 1638  
1639 -Moderator Effects:
2246 +Assumes “diverse equals better” without testing economic or emotional impact of those shifts.
1640 1640  
1641 -Low anti-Black prejudice and low White ethnic identification correlate with greater White preference for Black endorsers.
2248 +**Suggestions for Improvement:**
1642 1642  
1643 -Economic hardship (e.g., high unemployment) slightly reduces White preference for Black endorsers.
2250 +Include non-White viewer reactions to all-White or traditional American imagery for balance.
1644 1644  
1645 -Identification Model:
2252 +Test whether consumers notice racial proportions or experience fatigue from overcorrection.
1646 1646  
1647 -Preference changes are stronger when outcomes measure identification with endorsers (e.g., similarity, attractiveness).
2254 +Explore regional or class-based variance among White viewers, not just aggregate averages.
1648 1648  {{/expandable}}
1649 1649  
1650 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2257 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2258 +Demonstrates how White cultural imagery has been steadily replaced or downplayed in the public sphere.
1651 1651  
1652 -Strengths of the Study:
2260 +Useful for showing how marketing professionals and researchers frame White displacement as “progress.”
1653 1653  
1654 -Longest-running meta-analysis on interracial preferences in advertising.
2262 +Empirically supports the decline of White in-group preference — possibly due to reeducation, guilt framing, or media saturation.
2263 +{{/expandable}}
1655 1655  
1656 -Includes multilevel modeling and 21 meta-analytic covariates.
2265 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2266 +Study how overrepresentation of minorities in advertising compares to actual demographics.
1657 1657  
1658 -Accounts for both perceiver and societal context, and controls for publication bias.
2268 +Examine whether consumers feel represented or alienated by identity-based marketing.
1659 1659  
1660 -Limitations:
2270 +Investigate the psychological and cultural impact of long-term demographic displacement in national advertising.
2271 +{{/expandable}}
1661 1661  
1662 -Only examines Black and White racial dynamics—doesn’t cover Hispanic, Asian, or multiracial groups.
2273 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2274 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.2501_JAR-2022-028.pdf]]
2275 +{{/expandable}}
2276 +{{/expandable}}
1663 1663  
1664 -72% of effect sizes are from student samples (not fully generalizable).
2278 +{{expandable summary="Study: Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"}}
2279 +**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2280 +**Date of Publication:** *2020*
2281 +**Author(s):** *John A. Banas, Lauren L. Miller, David A. Braddock, Sun Kyong Lee*
2282 +**Title:** *"Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"*
2283 +**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqz032](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz032)
2284 +**Subject Matter:** *Media Psychology, Prejudice Reduction, Intergroup Relations*
1665 1665  
1666 -Social desirability bias may affect lab-based responses.
2286 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2287 +1. **General Observations:**
2288 + - Aggregated **71 studies involving 27,000+ participants**.
2289 + - Focused on how **media portrayals of out-groups (primarily minorities)** affect attitudes among dominant in-groups (i.e., Whites).
1667 1667  
1668 -Suggestions for Improvement:
2291 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
2292 + - **Fictional entertainment** had stronger effects than news.
2293 + - **Positive portrayals of minorities** correlated with significant reductions in “prejudice”.
1669 1669  
1670 -Include field experiments and more representative samples (age, class, ideology).
2295 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
2296 + - Effects were stronger when minority characters were portrayed as **warm, competent, and morally relatable**.
2297 + - Contact was more effective when it mimicked **face-to-face friendship narratives**.
2298 +{{/expandable}}
1671 1671  
1672 -Examine how Black models are portrayed, not just if they are shown.
2300 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2301 +1. **Primary Observations:**
2302 + - Media is a **powerful tool for shaping racial attitudes**, capable of reducing “prejudice” without real-world contact.
2303 + - **Repeated exposure** to positive portrayals of minorities led to increased acceptance and reduced negative bias.
1673 1673  
1674 -Extend research to other racial groups and multiracial representations.
2305 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2306 + - **White participants** were the primary targets of reconditioning.
2307 + - Minority participants were not studied in terms of **prejudice against Whites**.
2308 +
2309 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2310 + - “Parasocial” relationships with minority characters (TV/movie exposure) had comparable psychological effects to actual friendships.
2311 + - Media framing functioned as a **top-down mechanism for social engineering**, not just passive reflection of society.
1675 1675  {{/expandable}}
1676 1676  
1677 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2314 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2315 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2316 + - High-quality quantitative meta-analysis with clear design and robust statistical handling.
2317 + - Acknowledges **media’s ability to alter long-held social beliefs** without physical contact.
1678 1678  
1679 -Provides empirical support for the dynamic shift in White American attitudes over time.
2319 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2320 + - Only defines “prejudice” as **negative attitudes from Whites toward minorities** — no exploration of anti-White media narratives or bias.
2321 + - Ignores the effects of **overexposure to minority portrayals** on cultural alienation or backlash.
2322 + - Assumes **assimilation into DEI norms is inherently positive**, and any reluctance to accept them is “prejudice”.
1680 1680  
1681 -Directly informs discussions about media representation, consumer behavior, and racial identity.
2324 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2325 + - Study reciprocal dynamics — how **minority media portrayals impact attitudes toward Whites**.
2326 + - Investigate whether constant valorization of minorities leads to **resentment, guilt, or political disengagement** among White viewers.
2327 + - Analyze **media saturation effects**, especially in multicultural propaganda and corporate DEI messaging.
2328 +{{/expandable}}
1682 1682  
1683 -Supports policy and commercial arguments for including more diverse models in advertising.
2330 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2331 +- Provides **direct evidence** that media is being used to **reshape racial attitudes** through emotional, parasocial contact.
2332 +- Reinforces concern that **“tolerance” is engineered via asymmetric emotional exposure**, not organic consensus.
2333 +- Useful for documenting how **Whiteness is often treated as a bias to be corrected**, not a culture to be respected.
1684 1684  {{/expandable}}
1685 1685  
1686 1686  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2337 +1. Investigate **reverse parasocial effects** — how negative portrayals of White men affect self-perception and mental health.
2338 +2. Study how **mass entertainment normalizes demographic shifts** and silences native concerns.
2339 +3. Compare effects of **Western vs. non-Western media systems** in promoting diversity narratives. 
2340 +{{/expandable}}
1687 1687  
1688 -Expand analysis to Latino, Asian, and multiracial models in media.
2342 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2343 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf]]
2344 +{{/expandable}}
2345 +{{/expandable}}
1689 1689  
1690 -Study real-world (non-lab) consumer reactions to racial diversity in advertising.
2347 +{{expandable summary="
1691 1691  
1692 -Investigate how economic anxiety influences racial preferences in other domains (e.g., hiring, education).
1693 1693  
1694 -Explore how virtual influencers or AI-generated models affect racial perceptions.
2350 +Study: Cultural Voyeurism – A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"}}
2351 +**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2352 +**Date of Publication:** *2018*
2353 +**Author(s):** *Osei Appiah*
2354 +**Title:** *"Cultural Voyeurism: A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"*
2355 +**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
2356 +**Subject Matter:** *Intergroup contact, racial stereotypes, media, identity formation*
2357 +
2358 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2359 +1. **No empirical dataset** — this is a theoretical framework paper, not a quantitative study.
2360 +2. **Heavily cites prior empirical work**, including:
2361 + - Czopp & Monteith (2006) on “complimentary stereotypes”
2362 + - Armstrong et al. (1992), Entman & Rojecki (2000) on media distortion of race
2363 + - Pettigrew et al. (2011) on intergroup contact
2364 +
2365 +3. **Statistical implications:** Repeatedly emphasizes the role of media in shaping racial beliefs when direct interracial contact is absent.
1695 1695  {{/expandable}}
1696 1696  
2368 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2369 +1. **Primary Observations:**
2370 + - Defines *cultural voyeurism* as the process of using media to observe and learn about other racial/ethnic groups.
2371 + - Claims it can both reinforce stereotypes and reduce prejudice depending on context.
2372 + - Suggests that Whites’ fascination with Black culture (e.g., hip-hop, athleticism) is a driver of empathy and improved race relations.
2373 +
2374 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2375 + - White youth are singled out as cultural voyeurs increasingly emulating Black identity for social cachet (“coolness”).
2376 + - Positive media portrayals of Blacks (e.g., in entertainment) said to reduce racial bias.
2377 +
2378 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2379 + - No case study provided, but mentions “Duck Dynasty” and “hip-hop culture” as stereotyped White/Black identity constructs respectively.
2380 +{{/expandable}}
2381 +
2382 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2383 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2384 + - Recognizes media’s dual role in shaping intergroup perception.
2385 + - Accurately captures the obsession with racial “coolness” as a social phenomenon.
2386 +
2387 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2388 + - Frames White identification with Black culture as inherently progressive, ignoring issues of **anti-White displacement**.
2389 + - Treats *positive stereotypes of minorities* (e.g., athleticism, musicality) as meaningful substitutes for structural reality.
2390 + - Lacks any meaningful inquiry into *reverse cultural voyeurism* (i.e., non-Whites voyeuristically consuming and appropriating White identity or values).
2391 +
2392 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2393 + - Should confront whether “cultural voyeurism” ultimately erodes group boundaries and majority cultural integrity.
2394 + - Needs empirical validation of claims.
2395 + - Avoids uncomfortable realities about how White identity is increasingly stigmatized in media — which undermines genuine empathy or parity.
2396 +{{/expandable}}
2397 +
2398 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2399 +- Helps explain how **media conditioning** primes young Whites to *admire, emulate, and eventually submit* to Black cultural dominance.
2400 +- 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.
2401 +- Useful in chapters/sections covering cultural appropriation *in reverse* — not by Whites, but **of Whiteness** by outsiders for critique and exploitation.
2402 +{{/expandable}}
2403 +
2404 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2405 +1. Are there longitudinal studies showing cultural voyeurism weakening in-group preference among Whites?
2406 +2. Does this phenomenon correspond to decreased fertility, civic participation, or political alignment with group interest?
2407 +3. How do non-Western societies handle voyeuristic consumption of majority culture — do they permit or punish it?
2408 +{{/expandable}}
2409 +
1697 1697  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1698 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:lenk-et-al-white-americans-preference-for-black-people-in-advertising-has-increased-in-the-past-66-years-a-meta-analysis.pdf]]
2411 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Cultural Voyeurism A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Intera.pdf]]
1699 1699  {{/expandable}}
1700 1700  {{/expandable}}
10.1891_1946.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -523.1 KB
Content
10.3109_10826087709027235.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -698.4 KB
Content
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