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 126.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/21 05:27
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -19,1682 +19,17 @@
19 19  - You'll also find a download link to the original full study in pdf form at the bottom of the collapsible block.
20 20  
21 21  
22 +This page was getting too full, therefore I have created sub pages for each category. This makes it much easier to add new studies.
22 22  
23 -= Genetics =
24 24  
25 -{{expandable summary="
25 +[[Studies: Gentics>>doc:.Studies\: Genetics.WebHome]]
26 26  
27 -Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History"}}
28 -**Source:** *Nature*
29 -**Date of Publication:** *2009*
30 -**Author(s):** *David Reich, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Alkes L. Price, Lalji Singh*
31 -**Title:** *"Reconstructing Indian Population History"*
32 -**DOI:** [10.1038/nature08365](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08365)
33 -**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Population History, South Asian Ancestry*ย 
27 +[[Studies: IQ>>doc:.Studies\: IQ.WebHome]]
34 34  
35 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
36 -1. **General Observations:**
37 - - Study analyzed **132 individuals from 25 diverse Indian groups**.
38 - - Identified two major ancestral populations: **Ancestral North Indians (ANI)** and **Ancestral South Indians (ASI)**.
29 +[[Studies: Crime and Substance Abuse>>doc:.Studies\: Crime and Substance Abuse.WebHome]]
39 39  
40 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
41 - - ANI ancestry is closely related to **Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans**.
42 - - ASI ancestry is **genetically distinct from ANI and East Asians**.
31 +[[Studies: Dating>>doc:.Studies\: Dating.WebHome]]
43 43  
44 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
45 - - ANI ancestry ranges from **39% to 71%** across Indian groups.
46 - - **Caste and linguistic differences** strongly correlate with genetic variation.
47 -{{/expandable}}
33 +[[Studies: Whiteness>>doc:.Studies\: Whiteness and White Guilt.WebHome]]
48 48  
49 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
50 -1. **Primary Observations:**
51 - - The genetic landscape of India has been shaped by **thousands of years of endogamy**.
52 - - Groups with **only ASI ancestry no longer exist** in mainland India.
53 -
54 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
55 - - **Higher ANI ancestry in upper-caste and Indo-European-speaking groups**.
56 - - **Andaman Islanders** are unique in having **ASI ancestry without ANI influence**.
57 -
58 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
59 - - **Founder effects** have maintained allele frequency differences among Indian groups.
60 - - Predicts **higher incidence of recessive diseases** due to historical genetic isolation.
61 -{{/expandable}}
62 -
63 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
64 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
65 - - **First large-scale genetic analysis** of Indian population history.
66 - - Introduces **new methods for ancestry estimation without direct ancestral reference groups**.
67 -
68 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
69 - - Limited **sample size relative to India's population diversity**.
70 - - Does not include **recent admixture events** post-colonial era.
71 -
72 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
73 - - Future research should **expand sampling across more Indian tribal groups**.
74 - - Use **whole-genome sequencing** for finer resolution of ancestry.
75 -{{/expandable}}
76 -
77 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ Relevance to Subproject"}}
78 -- Provides a **genetic basis for caste and linguistic diversity** in India.
79 -- Highlights **founder effects and genetic drift** shaping South Asian populations.
80 -- Supports research on **medical genetics and disease risk prediction** in Indian populations.
81 -{{/expandable}}
82 -
83 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
84 -1. Examine **genetic markers linked to disease susceptibility** in Indian subpopulations.
85 -2. Investigate the impact of **recent migration patterns on ANI-ASI ancestry distribution**.
86 -3. Study **gene flow between Indian populations and other global groups**.
87 -{{/expandable}}
88 -
89 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
90 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature08365.pdf]]
91 -{{/expandable}}
92 -{{/expandable}}
93 -
94 -{{expandable summary="Study: The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"}}
95 -**Source:** *Nature*
96 -**Date of Publication:** *2016*
97 -**Author(s):** *David Reich, Swapan Mallick, Heng Li, Mark Lipson, and others*
98 -**Title:** *"The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"*
99 -**DOI:** [10.1038/nature18964](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18964)
100 -**Subject Matter:** *Human Genetic Diversity, Population History, Evolutionary Genomics*
101 -
102 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
103 -1. **General Observations:**
104 - - Analyzed **high-coverage genome sequences of 300 individuals from 142 populations**.
105 - - Included **many underrepresented and indigenous groups** from Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas.
106 -
107 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
108 - - Found **higher genetic diversity within African populations** compared to non-African groups.
109 - - Showed **Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry in non-African populations**, particularly in Oceania.
110 -
111 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
112 - - Identified **5.8 million base pairs absent from the human reference genome**.
113 - - Estimated that **mutations have accumulated 5% faster in non-Africans than in Africans**.
114 -{{/expandable}}
115 -
116 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
117 -1. **Primary Observations:**
118 - - **African populations harbor the greatest genetic diversity**, confirming an out-of-Africa dispersal model.
119 - - Indigenous Australians and New Guineans **share a common ancestral population with other non-Africans**.
120 -
121 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
122 - - **Lower heterozygosity in non-Africans** due to founder effects from migration bottlenecks.
123 - - **Denisovan ancestry in South Asians is higher than previously thought**.
124 -
125 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
126 - - **Neanderthal ancestry is higher in East Asians than in Europeans**.
127 - - African hunter-gatherer groups show **deep population splits over 100,000 years ago**.
128 -{{/expandable}}
129 -
130 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
131 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
132 - - **Largest global genetic dataset** outside of the 1000 Genomes Project.
133 - - High sequencing depth allows **more accurate identification of genetic variants**.
134 -
135 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
136 - - **Limited sample sizes for some populations**, restricting generalizability.
137 - - Lacks ancient DNA comparisons, making it difficult to reconstruct deep ancestry fully.
138 -
139 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
140 - - Future studies should include **ancient genomes** to improve demographic modeling.
141 - - Expand research into **how genetic variation affects health outcomes** across populations.
142 -{{/expandable}}
143 -
144 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ Relevance to Subproject"}}
145 -- Provides **comprehensive data on human genetic diversity**, useful for **evolutionary studies**.
146 -- Supports research on **Neanderthal and Denisovan introgression** in modern human populations.
147 -- Enhances understanding of **genetic adaptation and disease susceptibility across groups**.
148 -{{/expandable}}
149 -
150 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
151 -1. Investigate **functional consequences of genetic variation in underrepresented populations**.
152 -2. Study **how selection pressures shaped genetic diversity across different environments**.
153 -3. Explore **medical applications of population-specific genetic markers**.
154 -{{/expandable}}
155 -
156 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
157 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature18964.pdf]]
158 -{{/expandable}}
159 -{{/expandable}}
160 -
161 -{{expandable summary="
162 -
163 -Study: Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"}}
164 -**Source:** *Nature Genetics*
165 -**Date of Publication:** *2015*
166 -**Author(s):** *Tinca J. C. Polderman, Beben Benyamin, Christiaan A. de Leeuw, Patrick F. Sullivan, Arjen van Bochoven, Peter M. Visscher, Danielle Posthuma*
167 -**Title:** *"Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"*
168 -**DOI:** [10.1038/ng.328](https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.328)
169 -**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Heritability, Twin Studies, Behavioral Science*
170 -
171 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
172 -1. **General Observations:**
173 - - Analyzed **17,804 traits from 2,748 twin studies** published between **1958 and 2012**.
174 - - Included data from **14,558,903 twin pairs**, making it the largest meta-analysis on human heritability.
175 -
176 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
177 - - Found **49% average heritability** across all traits.
178 - - **69% of traits follow a simple additive genetic model**, meaning most variance is due to genes, not environment.
179 -
180 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
181 - - **Neurological, metabolic, and psychiatric traits** showed the highest heritability estimates.
182 - - Traits related to **social values and environmental interactions** had lower heritability estimates.
183 -{{/expandable}}
184 -
185 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
186 -1. **Primary Observations:**
187 - - Across all traits, genetic factors play a significant role in individual differences.
188 - - The study contradicts models that **overestimate environmental effects in behavioral and cognitive traits**.
189 -
190 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
191 - - **Eye and brain-related traits showed the highest heritability (70-80%)**.
192 - - **Shared environmental effects were negligible (<10%) for most traits**.
193 -
194 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
195 - - Twin correlations suggest **limited evidence for strong non-additive genetic influences**.
196 - - The study highlights **missing heritability in complex traits**, which genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have yet to fully explain.
197 -{{/expandable}}
198 -
199 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
200 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
201 - - **Largest-ever heritability meta-analysis**, covering nearly all published twin studies.
202 - - Provides a **comprehensive framework for understanding gene-environment contributions**.
203 -
204 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
205 - - **Underrepresentation of African, South American, and Asian twin cohorts**, limiting global generalizability.
206 - - Cannot **fully separate genetic influences from potential cultural/environmental confounders**.
207 -
208 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
209 - - Future research should use **whole-genome sequencing** for finer-grained heritability estimates.
210 - - **Incorporate non-Western populations** to assess global heritability trends.
211 -{{/expandable}}
212 -
213 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ Relevance to Subproject"}}
214 -- Establishes a **quantitative benchmark for heritability across human traits**.
215 -- Reinforces **genetic influence on cognitive, behavioral, and physical traits**.
216 -- Highlights the need for **genome-wide studies to identify missing heritability**.
217 -{{/expandable}}
218 -
219 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
220 -1. Investigate how **heritability estimates compare across different socioeconomic backgrounds**.
221 -2. Examine **gene-environment interactions in cognitive and psychiatric traits**.
222 -3. Explore **non-additive genetic effects on human traits using newer statistical models**.
223 -{{/expandable}}
224 -
225 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
226 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_ng.328.pdf]]
227 -{{/expandable}}
228 -{{/expandable}}
229 -
230 -{{expandable summary="
231 -
232 -Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease"}}
233 -**Source:** *Nature Reviews Genetics*
234 -**Date of Publication:** *2002*
235 -**Author(s):** *Sarah A. Tishkoff, Scott M. Williams*
236 -**Title:** *"Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease"*
237 -**DOI:** [10.1038/nrg865](https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg865)
238 -**Subject Matter:** *Population Genetics, Human Evolution, Complex Diseases*ย 
239 -
240 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
241 -1. **General Observations:**
242 - - Africa harbors **the highest genetic diversity** of any region, making it key to understanding human evolution.
243 - - The study analyzes **genetic variation and linkage disequilibrium (LD) in African populations**.
244 -
245 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
246 - - African populations exhibit **greater genetic differentiation compared to non-Africans**.
247 - - **Migration and admixture** have shaped modern African genomes over the past **100,000 years**.
248 -
249 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
250 - - The **effective population size (Ne) of Africans** is higher than that of non-African populations.
251 - - LD blocks are **shorter in African genomes**, suggesting more historical recombination events.
252 -{{/expandable}}
253 -
254 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
255 -1. **Primary Observations:**
256 - - African populations are the **most genetically diverse**, supporting the *Recent African Origin* hypothesis.
257 - - Genetic variation in African populations can **help fine-map complex disease genes**.
258 -
259 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
260 - - **West Africans exhibit higher genetic diversity** than East Africans due to differing migration patterns.
261 - - Populations such as **San hunter-gatherers show deep genetic divergence**.
262 -
263 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
264 - - Admixture in African Americans includes **West African and European genetic contributions**.
265 - - SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) diversity in African genomes **exceeds that of non-African groups**.
266 -{{/expandable}}
267 -
268 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
269 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
270 - - Provides **comprehensive genetic analysis** of diverse African populations.
271 - - Highlights **how genetic diversity impacts health disparities and disease risks**.
272 -
273 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
274 - - Many **African populations remain understudied**, limiting full understanding of diversity.
275 - - Focuses more on genetic variation than on **specific disease mechanisms**.
276 -
277 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
278 - - Expand research into **underrepresented African populations**.
279 - - Integrate **whole-genome sequencing for a more detailed evolutionary timeline**.
280 -{{/expandable}}
281 -
282 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ Relevance to Subproject"}}
283 -- Supports **genetic models of human evolution** and the **out-of-Africa hypothesis**.
284 -- Reinforces **Africaโ€™s key role in disease gene mapping and precision medicine**.
285 -- Provides insight into **historical migration patterns and their genetic impact**.
286 -{{/expandable}}
287 -
288 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
289 -1. Investigate **genetic adaptations to local environments within Africa**.
290 -2. Study **the role of African genetic diversity in disease resistance**.
291 -3. Expand research on **how ancient migration patterns shaped modern genetic structure**.
292 -{{/expandable}}
293 -
294 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
295 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nrg865MODERN.pdf]]
296 -{{/expandable}}
297 -{{/expandable}}
298 -
299 -{{expandable summary="
300 -
301 -Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA"}}
302 -**Source:** *bioRxiv Preprint*
303 -**Date of Publication:** *September 15, 2024*
304 -**Author(s):** *Ali Akbari, Alison R. Barton, Steven Gazal, Zheng Li, Mohammadreza Kariminejad, et al.*
305 -**Title:** *"Pervasive findings of directional selection realize the promise of ancient DNA to elucidate human adaptation"*
306 -**DOI:** [10.1101/2024.09.14.613021](https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.14.613021)
307 -**Subject Matter:** *Genomics, Evolutionary Biology, Natural Selection*
308 -
309 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
310 -1. **General Observations:**
311 - - Study analyzes **8,433 ancient individuals** from the past **14,000 years**.
312 - - Identifies **347 genome-wide significant loci** showing strong selection.
313 -
314 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
315 - - Examines **West Eurasian populations** and their genetic evolution.
316 - - Tracks **changes in allele frequencies over millennia**.
317 -
318 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
319 - - **10,000 years of directional selection** affected metabolic, immune, and cognitive traits.
320 - - **Strong selection signals** found for traits like **skin pigmentation, cognitive function, and immunity**.
321 -{{/expandable}}
322 -
323 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
324 -1. **Primary Observations:**
325 - - **Hundreds of alleles have been subject to directional selection** over recent millennia.
326 - - Traits like **immune function, metabolism, and cognitive performance** show strong selection.
327 -
328 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
329 - - Selection pressure on **energy storage genes** supports the **Thrifty Gene Hypothesis**.
330 - - **Cognitive performance-related alleles** have undergone selection, but their historical advantages remain unclear.
331 -
332 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
333 - - **Celiac disease risk allele** increased from **0% to 20%** in 4,000 years.
334 - - **Blood type B frequency rose from 0% to 8% in 6,000 years**.
335 - - **Tuberculosis risk allele** fluctuated from **2% to 9% over 3,000 years before declining**.
336 -{{/expandable}}
337 -
338 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
339 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
340 - - **Largest dataset to date** on natural selection in human ancient DNA.
341 - - Uses **direct allele frequency tracking instead of indirect measures**.
342 -
343 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
344 - - Findings **may not translate directly** to modern populations.
345 - - **Unclear whether observed selection pressures persist today**.
346 -
347 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
348 - - Expanding research to **other global populations** to assess universal trends.
349 - - Investigating **long-term evolutionary trade-offs of selected alleles**.
350 -{{/expandable}}
351 -
352 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ Relevance to Subproject"}}
353 -- Provides **direct evidence of long-term genetic adaptation** in human populations.
354 -- Supports theories on **polygenic selection shaping human cognition, metabolism, and immunity**.
355 -- Highlights **how past selection pressures may still influence modern health and disease prevalence**.
356 -{{/expandable}}
357 -
358 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
359 -1. Examine **selection patterns in non-European populations** for comparison.
360 -2. Investigate **how environmental and cultural shifts influenced genetic selection**.
361 -3. Explore **the genetic basis of traits linked to past and present-day human survival**.
362 -{{/expandable}}
363 -
364 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
365 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1101_2024.09.14.613021doi_.pdf]]
366 -{{/expandable}}
367 -{{/expandable}}
368 -
369 -{{expandable summary="Study: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"}}
370 -**Source:** *Twin Research and Human Genetics (Cambridge University Press)*
371 -**Date of Publication:** *2013*
372 -**Author(s):** *Thomas J. Bouchard Jr.*
373 -**Title:** *"The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"*
374 -**DOI:** [10.1017/thg.2013.54](https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2013.54)
375 -**Subject Matter:** *Intelligence, Heritability, Developmental Psychology*
376 -
377 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
378 -1. **General Observations:**
379 - - The study documents how the **heritability of IQ increases with age**, reaching an asymptote at **0.80 by adulthood**.
380 - - Analysis is based on **longitudinal twin and adoption studies**.
381 -
382 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
383 - - Shared environmental influence on IQ **declines with age**, reaching **0.10 in adulthood**.
384 - - Monozygotic twins show **increasing genetic similarity in IQ over time**, while dizygotic twins become **less concordant**.
385 -
386 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
387 - - Data from the **Louisville Longitudinal Twin Study and cross-national twin samples** support findings.
388 - - IQ stability over time is **influenced more by genetics than by shared environmental factors**.
389 -{{/expandable}}
390 -
391 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
392 -1. **Primary Observations:**
393 - - Intelligence heritability **strengthens throughout development**, contrary to early environmental models.
394 - - Shared environmental effects **decrease by late adolescence**, emphasizing **genetic influence in adulthood**.
395 -
396 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
397 - - Studies from **Scotland, Netherlands, and the US** show **consistent patterns of increasing heritability with age**.
398 - - Findings hold across **varied socio-economic and educational backgrounds**.
399 -
400 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
401 - - Longitudinal adoption studies show **declining impact of adoptive parental influence on IQ** as children age.
402 - - Cross-sectional twin data confirm **higher IQ correlations for monozygotic twins in adulthood**.
403 -{{/expandable}}
404 -
405 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
406 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
407 - - **Robust dataset covering multiple twin and adoption studies over decades**.
408 - - **Clear, replicable trend** demonstrating the increasing role of genetics in intelligence.
409 -
410 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
411 - - Findings apply primarily to **Western industrialized nations**, limiting generalizability.
412 - - **Lack of neurobiological mechanisms** explaining how genes express their influence over time.
413 -
414 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
415 - - Future research should investigate **gene-environment interactions in cognitive aging**.
416 - - Examine **heritability trends in non-Western populations** to determine cross-cultural consistency.
417 -{{/expandable}}
418 -
419 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ Relevance to Subproject"}}
420 -- Provides **strong evidence for the genetic basis of intelligence**.
421 -- Highlights the **diminishing role of shared environment in cognitive development**.
422 -- Supports research on **cognitive aging and heritability across the lifespan**.
423 -{{/expandable}}
424 -
425 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
426 -1. Investigate **neurogenetic pathways underlying IQ development**.
427 -2. Examine **how education and socioeconomic factors interact with genetic IQ influences**.
428 -3. Study **heritability trends in aging populations and cognitive decline**.
429 -{{/expandable}}
430 -
431 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
432 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1017_thg.2013.54.pdf]]
433 -{{/expandable}}
434 -{{/expandable}}
435 -
436 -{{expandable summary="Study: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"}}
437 -**Source:** *Medical Hypotheses (Elsevier)*
438 -**Date of Publication:** *2010*
439 -**Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley*
440 -**Title:** *"Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"*
441 -**DOI:** [10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046)
442 -**Subject Matter:** *Human Taxonomy, Evolutionary Biology, Anthropology*
443 -
444 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
445 -1. **General Observations:**
446 - - The study argues that **Homo sapiens is polytypic**, meaning it consists of multiple subspecies rather than a single monotypic species.
447 - - Examines **genetic diversity, morphological variation, and evolutionary lineage** in humans.
448 -
449 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
450 - - Discusses **four primary definitions of race/subspecies**: Essentialist, Taxonomic, Population-based, and Lineage-based.
451 - - Suggests that **human heterozygosity levels are comparable to species that are classified as polytypic**.
452 -
453 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
454 - - The study evaluates **FST values (genetic differentiation measure)** and argues that human genetic differentiation is comparable to that of recognized subspecies in other species.
455 - - Considers **phylogenetic species concepts** in defining human variation.
456 -{{/expandable}}
457 -
458 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
459 -1. **Primary Observations:**
460 - - Proposes that **modern human populations meet biological criteria for subspecies classification**.
461 - - Highlights **medical and evolutionary implications** of human taxonomic diversity.
462 -
463 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
464 - - Discusses **how race concepts evolved over time** in biological sciences.
465 - - Compares **human diversity with that of other primates** such as chimpanzees and gorillas.
466 -
467 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
468 - - Evaluates how **genetic markers correlate with population structure**.
469 - - Addresses the **controversy over race classification in modern anthropology**.
470 -{{/expandable}}
471 -
472 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
473 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
474 - - Uses **comparative species analysis** to assess human classification.
475 - - Provides a **biological perspective** on the race concept, moving beyond social constructivism arguments.
476 -
477 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
478 - - Controversial topic with **strong opposing views in anthropology and genetics**.
479 - - **Relies on broad genetic trends**, but does not analyze individual-level genetic variation in depth.
480 -
481 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
482 - - Further research should **incorporate whole-genome studies** to refine subspecies classifications.
483 - - Investigate **how admixture affects taxonomic classification over time**.
484 -{{/expandable}}
485 -
486 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ Relevance to Subproject"}}
487 -- Contributes to discussions on **evolutionary taxonomy and species classification**.
488 -- Provides evidence on **genetic differentiation among human populations**.
489 -- Highlights **historical and contemporary scientific debates on race and human variation**.
490 -{{/expandable}}
491 -
492 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
493 -1. Examine **FST values in modern and ancient human populations**.
494 -2. Investigate how **adaptive evolution influences population differentiation**.
495 -3. Explore **the impact of genetic diversity on medical treatments and disease susceptibility**.
496 -{{/expandable}}
497 -
498 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
499 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.mehy.2009.07.046.pdf]]
500 -{{/expandable}}
501 -{{/expandable}}
502 -
503 -= IQ =
504 -
505 -{{expandable summary="Study: Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"}}
506 -**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
507 -**Date of Publication:** *2019*
508 -**Author(s):** *Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, Thomas R. Coyle*
509 -**Title:** *"Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"*
510 -**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406)
511 -**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Intelligence Research, Expert Analysis*
512 -
513 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
514 -1. **General Observations:**
515 - - Survey of **102 experts** on intelligence research and public discourse.
516 - - Evaluated experts' backgrounds, political affiliations, and views on controversial topics in intelligence research.
517 -
518 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
519 - - **90% of experts were from Western countries**, and **83% were male**.
520 - - Political spectrum ranged from **54% left-liberal, 24% conservative**, with significant ideological influences on views.
521 -
522 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
523 - - Experts rated media coverage of intelligence research as **poor (avg. 3.1 on a 9-point scale)**.
524 - - **50% of experts attributed US Black-White IQ differences to genetic factors, 50% to environmental factors**.
525 -{{/expandable}}
526 -
527 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
528 -1. **Primary Observations:**
529 - - Experts overwhelmingly support **the g-factor theory of intelligence**.
530 - - **Heritability of intelligence** was widely accepted, though views differed on race and group differences.
531 -
532 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
533 - - **Left-leaning experts were more likely to reject genetic explanations for group IQ differences**.
534 - - **Right-leaning experts tended to favor a stronger role for genetic factors** in intelligence disparities.
535 -
536 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
537 - - The study compared **media coverage of intelligence research** with expert opinions.
538 - - Found a **disconnect between journalists and intelligence researchers**, especially regarding politically sensitive issues.
539 -{{/expandable}}
540 -
541 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
542 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
543 - - **Largest expert survey on intelligence research** to date.
544 - - Provides insight into **how political orientation influences scientific perspectives**.
545 -
546 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
547 - - **Sample primarily from Western countries**, limiting global perspectives.
548 - - Self-selection bias may skew responses toward **those more willing to engage with controversial topics**.
549 -
550 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
551 - - Future studies should include **a broader range of global experts**.
552 - - Additional research needed on **media biases and misrepresentation of intelligence research**.
553 -{{/expandable}}
554 -
555 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ Relevance to Subproject"}}
556 -- Provides insight into **expert consensus and division on intelligence research**.
557 -- Highlights the **role of media bias** in shaping public perception of intelligence science.
558 -- Useful for understanding **the intersection of science, politics, and public discourse** on intelligence research.
559 -{{/expandable}}
560 -
561 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
562 -1. Examine **cross-national differences** in expert opinions on intelligence.
563 -2. Investigate how **media bias impacts public understanding of intelligence research**.
564 -3. Conduct follow-up studies with **a more diverse expert pool** to test findings.
565 -{{/expandable}}
566 -
567 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
568 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2019.101406.pdf]]
569 -{{/expandable}}
570 -{{/expandable}}
571 -
572 -{{expandable summary="Study: A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"}}
573 -**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
574 -**Date of Publication:** *2015*
575 -**Author(s):** *Davide Piffer*
576 -**Title:** *"A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"*
577 -**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008)
578 -**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Intelligence, GWAS, Population Differences*
579 -
580 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
581 -1. **General Observations:**
582 - - Study analyzed **genome-wide association studies (GWAS) hits** linked to intelligence.
583 - - Found a **strong correlation (r = .91) between polygenic intelligence scores and national IQ levels**.
584 -
585 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
586 - - Factor analysis of **9 intelligence-associated alleles** revealed a metagene correlated with **country IQ (r = .86)**.
587 - - **Allele frequencies varied significantly by continent**, aligning with observed population differences in cognitive ability.
588 -
589 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
590 - - GWAS intelligence SNPs predicted **IQ levels more strongly than random genetic markers**.
591 - - Genetic differentiation (Fst values) showed that **selection pressure, rather than drift, influenced intelligence-related allele distributions**.
592 -{{/expandable}}
593 -
594 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
595 -1. **Primary Observations:**
596 - - Intelligence-associated SNP frequencies correlate **highly with national IQ levels**.
597 - - Genetic selection for intelligence appears **stronger than selection for height-related genes**.
598 -
599 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
600 - - **East Asian populations** exhibited the **highest frequencies of intelligence-associated alleles**.
601 - - **African populations** showed lower frequencies compared to European and East Asian populations.
602 -
603 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
604 - - Polygenic scores using **intelligence-related alleles significantly outperformed random SNPs** in predicting IQ.
605 - - Selection pressures **may explain differences in global intelligence distribution** beyond genetic drift effects.
606 -{{/expandable}}
607 -
608 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
609 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
610 - - **Comprehensive genetic analysis** of intelligence-linked SNPs.
611 - - Uses **multiple statistical methods (factor analysis, Fst analysis) to confirm results**.
612 -
613 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
614 - - **Correlation does not imply causation**; factors beyond genetics influence intelligence.
615 - - **Limited number of GWAS-identified intelligence alleles**โ€”future studies may identify more.
616 -
617 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
618 - - Larger **cross-population GWAS studies** needed to validate findings.
619 - - Investigate **non-genetic contributors to IQ variance** in addition to genetic factors.
620 -{{/expandable}}
621 -
622 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ Relevance to Subproject"}}
623 -- Supports research on **genetic influences on intelligence at a population level**.
624 -- Aligns with broader discussions on **cognitive genetics and natural selection effects**.
625 -- Provides a **quantitative framework for analyzing polygenic selection in intelligence studies**.
626 -{{/expandable}}
627 -
628 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
629 -1. Conduct **expanded GWAS studies** including diverse populations.
630 -2. Investigate **gene-environment interactions influencing intelligence**.
631 -3. Explore **historical selection pressures shaping intelligence-related alleles**.
632 -{{/expandable}}
633 -
634 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
635 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2015.08.008.pdf]]
636 -{{/expandable}}
637 -{{/expandable}}
638 -
639 -{{expandable summary="Study: Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding"}}
640 -**Source:** Journal of Genetic Epidemiology
641 -**Date of Publication:** 2024-01-15
642 -**Author(s):** Smith et al.
643 -**Title:** "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies"
644 -**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235](https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235)
645 -**Subject Matter:** Genetics, Social Science
646 -{{/expandable}}
647 -
648 -= Dating =
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"}}
651 -**Source:** *JAMA Network Open*
652 -**Date of Publication:** *2020*
653 -**Author(s):** *Ueda P, Mercer CH, Ghaznavi C, Herbenick D.*
654 -**Title:** *"Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"*
655 -**DOI:** [10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833)
656 -**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Sexual Behavior, Demography*ย 
657 -
658 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
659 -1. **General Observations:**
660 - - Study analyzed **General Social Survey (2000-2018)** data.
661 - - Found **declining trends in sexual activity** among young adults.
662 -
663 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
664 - - Decreases in sexual activity were most prominent among **men aged 18-34**.
665 - - Factors like **marital status, employment, and psychological well-being** were associated with changes in sexual frequency.
666 -
667 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
668 - - Frequency of sexual activity decreased by **8-10%** over the studied period.
669 - - Number of sexual partners remained **relatively stable** despite declining activity rates.
670 -{{/expandable}}
671 -
672 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
673 -1. **Primary Observations:**
674 - - A significant decline in sexual frequency, especially among **younger men**.
675 - - Shifts in relationship dynamics and economic stressors may contribute to the trend.
676 -
677 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
678 - - More pronounced decline among **unmarried individuals**.
679 - - No major change observed for **married adults** over time.
680 -
681 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
682 - - **Mental health and employment status** were correlated with decreased activity.
683 - - Social factors such as **screen time and digital entertainment consumption** are potential contributors.
684 -{{/expandable}}
685 -
686 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
687 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
688 - - **Large sample size** from a nationally representative dataset.
689 - - **Longitudinal design** enables trend analysis over time.
690 -
691 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
692 - - Self-reported data may introduce **response bias**.
693 - - No direct causal mechanisms tested for the decline in sexual activity.
694 -
695 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
696 - - Further studies should incorporate **qualitative data** on behavioral shifts.
697 - - Additional factors such as **economic shifts and social media usage** need exploration.
698 -{{/expandable}}
699 -
700 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ Relevance to Subproject"}}
701 -- Provides evidence on **changing demographic behaviors** in relation to relationships and social interactions.
702 -- Highlights the role of **mental health, employment, and societal changes** in personal behaviors.
703 -{{/expandable}}
704 -
705 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
706 -1. Investigate the **impact of digital media consumption** on relationship dynamics.
707 -2. Examine **regional and cultural differences** in sexual activity trends.
708 -{{/expandable}}
709 -
710 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
711 -
712 -{{/expandable}}
713 -{{/expandable}}
714 -
715 -{{expandable summary="Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes โ€“ A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"}}
716 -**Source:** *Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica*
717 -**Date of Publication:** *2012*
718 -**Author(s):** *Ravisha M. Srinivasjois, Shreya Shah, Prakesh S. Shah, Knowledge Synthesis Group on Determinants of Preterm/LBW Births*
719 -**Title:** *"Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"*
720 -**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x)
721 -**Subject Matter:** *Neonatal Health, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Racial Disparities*
722 -
723 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
724 -1. **General Observations:**
725 - - Meta-analysis of **26,335,596 singleton births** from eight studies.
726 - - **Higher risk of adverse birth outcomes in biracial couples** than White couples, but lower than Black couples.
727 -
728 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
729 - - **Maternal race had a stronger influence than paternal race** on birth outcomes.
730 - - **Black motherโ€“White father (BMWF) couples** had a higher risk than **White motherโ€“Black father (WMBF) couples**.
731 -
732 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
733 - - **Adjusted Odds Ratios (aORs) for key outcomes:**
734 - - **Low birthweight (LBW):** WMBF (1.21), BMWF (1.75), Black motherโ€“Black father (BMBF) (2.08).
735 - - **Preterm births (PTB):** WMBF (1.17), BMWF (1.37), BMBF (1.78).
736 - - **Stillbirths:** WMBF (1.43), BMWF (1.51), BMBF (1.85).
737 -{{/expandable}}
738 -
739 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
740 -1. **Primary Observations:**
741 - - **Biracial couples face a gradient of risk**: higher than White couples but lower than Black couples.
742 - - **Maternal race plays a more significant role** in pregnancy outcomes.
743 -
744 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
745 - - **Black mothers (regardless of paternal race) had the highest risk of LBW and PTB**.
746 - - **White mothers with Black fathers had a lower risk** than Black mothers with White fathers.
747 -
748 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
749 - - The **weathering hypothesis** suggests that **long-term stress exposure** contributes to higher adverse birth risks in Black mothers.
750 - - **Genetic and environmental factors** may interact to influence birth outcomes.
751 -{{/expandable}}
752 -
753 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
754 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
755 - - **Largest meta-analysis** on racial disparities in birth outcomes.
756 - - Uses **adjusted statistical models** to account for confounding variables.
757 -
758 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
759 - - Data limited to **Black-White biracial couples**, excluding other racial groups.
760 - - **Socioeconomic and healthcare access factors** not fully explored.
761 -
762 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
763 - - Future studies should examine **Asian, Hispanic, and Indigenous biracial couples**.
764 - - Investigate **long-term health effects on infants from biracial pregnancies**.
765 -{{/expandable}}
766 -
767 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ Relevance to Subproject"}}
768 -- Provides **critical insights into racial disparities** in maternal and infant health.
769 -- Supports **research on genetic and environmental influences on neonatal health**.
770 -- Highlights **how maternal race plays a more significant role than paternal race** in birth outcomes.
771 -{{/expandable}}
772 -
773 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
774 -1. Investigate **the role of prenatal care quality in mitigating racial disparities**.
775 -2. Examine **how social determinants of health impact biracial pregnancy outcomes**.
776 -3. Explore **gene-environment interactions influencing birthweight and prematurity risks**.
777 -{{/expandable}}
778 -
779 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
780 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1600-0412.2012.01501.xAbstract.pdf]]
781 -{{/expandable}}
782 -{{/expandable}}
783 -
784 -{{expandable summary="Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"}}
785 -**Source:** *Current Psychology*
786 -**Date of Publication:** *2024*
787 -**Author(s):** *Brandon Sparks, Alexandra M. Zidenberg, Mark E. Olver*
788 -**Title:** *"One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"*
789 -**DOI:** [10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z)
790 -**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Mental Health, Social Isolation*
791 -
792 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
793 -1. **General Observations:**
794 - - Study analyzed **67 self-identified incels** and **103 non-incel men**.
795 - - Incels reported **higher loneliness and lower social support** compared to non-incels.
796 -
797 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
798 - - Incels exhibited **higher levels of depression, anxiety, and self-critical rumination**.
799 - - **Social isolation was a key factor** differentiating incels from non-incels.
800 -
801 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
802 - - 95% of incels in the study reported **having depression**, with 38% receiving a formal diagnosis.
803 - - **Higher externalization of blame** was linked to stronger incel identification.
804 -{{/expandable}}
805 -
806 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
807 -1. **Primary Observations:**
808 - - Incels experience **heightened rejection sensitivity and loneliness**.
809 - - Lack of social support correlates with **worse mental health outcomes**.
810 -
811 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
812 - - **Avoidant attachment styles** were a strong predictor of incel identity.
813 - - **Mate value perceptions** significantly differed between incels and non-incels.
814 -
815 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
816 - - Incels **engaged in fewer positive coping mechanisms** such as emotional support or positive reframing.
817 - - Instead, they relied on **solitary coping strategies**, worsening their isolation.
818 -{{/expandable}}
819 -
820 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
821 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
822 - - **First quantitative study** on incelsโ€™ social isolation and mental health.
823 - - **Robust sample size** and validated psychological measures.
824 -
825 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
826 - - Sample drawn from **Reddit communities**, which may not represent all incels.
827 - - **No causal conclusions**โ€”correlations between isolation and inceldom need further research.
828 -
829 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
830 - - Future studies should **compare incel forum users vs. non-users**.
831 - - Investigate **potential intervention strategies** for social integration.
832 -{{/expandable}}
833 -
834 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ Relevance to Subproject"}}
835 -- Highlights **mental health vulnerabilities** within the incel community.
836 -- Supports research on **loneliness, attachment styles, and social dominance orientation**.
837 -- Examines how **peer rejection influences self-perceived mate value**.
838 -{{/expandable}}
839 -
840 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
841 -1. Explore how **online community participation** affects incel mental health.
842 -2. Investigate **cognitive biases** influencing self-perceived rejection among incels.
843 -3. Assess **therapeutic interventions** to address incel social isolation.
844 -{{/expandable}}
845 -
846 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
847 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1007_s12144-023-04275-z.pdf]]
848 -{{/expandable}}
849 -{{/expandable}}
850 -
851 -= Crime and Substance Abuse =
852 -
853 -{{expandable summary="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"}}
854 -**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
855 -**Date of Publication:** *2002*
856 -**Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
857 -**Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
858 -**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
859 -**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts*
860 -
861 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
862 -1. **General Observations:**
863 - - Study examined **drug treatment court success rates** among first-time offenders.
864 - - Strongest predictors of **successful completion were employment status and race**.
865 -
866 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
867 - - Individuals with **stable jobs were more likely to complete the program**.
868 - - **Black participants had lower success rates**, suggesting potential systemic disparities.
869 -
870 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
871 - - **Education level was positively correlated** with program completion.
872 - - Frequency of **drug use before enrollment affected treatment outcomes**.
873 -{{/expandable}}
874 -
875 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
876 -1. **Primary Observations:**
877 - - **Social stability factors** (employment, education) were key to treatment success.
878 - - **Race and pre-existing substance use patterns** influenced completion rates.
879 -
880 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
881 - - White offenders had **higher completion rates** than Black offenders.
882 - - Drug court success was **higher for those with lower initial drug use frequency**.
883 -
884 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
885 - - **Individuals with strong social ties were more likely to finish the program**.
886 - - Success rates were **significantly higher for participants with case management support**.
887 -{{/expandable}}
888 -
889 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
890 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
891 - - **First empirical study on drug court program success factors**.
892 - - Uses **longitudinal data** for post-treatment analysis.
893 -
894 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
895 - - Lacks **qualitative data on personal motivation and treatment engagement**.
896 - - Focuses on **short-term program success** without tracking **long-term relapse rates**.
897 -
898 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
899 - - Future research should examine **racial disparities in drug court outcomes**.
900 - - Study **how community resources impact long-term recovery**.
901 -{{/expandable}}
902 -
903 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ Relevance to Subproject"}}
904 -- Provides insight into **what factors contribute to drug court program success**.
905 -- Highlights **racial disparities in criminal justice-based rehabilitation programs**.
906 -- Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.
907 -{{/expandable}}
908 -
909 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
910 -1. Investigate **the role of mental health in drug court success rates**.
911 -2. Assess **long-term relapse prevention strategies post-treatment**.
912 -3. Explore **alternative diversion programs beyond traditional drug courts**.
913 -{{/expandable}}
914 -
915 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
916 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120014424.pdf]]
917 -{{/expandable}}
918 -{{/expandable}}
919 -
920 -{{expandable summary="Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"}}
921 -**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
922 -**Date of Publication:** *2003*
923 -**Author(s):** *Timothy P. Johnson, Phillip J. Bowman*
924 -**Title:** *"Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"*
925 -**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120023394](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120023394)
926 -**Subject Matter:** *Survey Methodology, Racial Disparities, Substance Use Research*
927 -
928 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
929 -1. **General Observations:**
930 - - Study examined **how racial and cultural factors influence self-reported substance use data**.
931 - - Analyzed **36 empirical studies from 1977โ€“2003** on survey reliability across racial/ethnic groups.
932 -
933 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
934 - - Black and Latino respondents **were more likely to underreport drug use** compared to White respondents.
935 - - **Cultural stigma and distrust in research institutions** affected self-report accuracy.
936 -
937 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
938 - - **Surveys using biological validation (urinalysis, hair tests) revealed underreporting trends**.
939 - - **Higher recantation rates** (denying past drug use) were observed among minority respondents.
940 -{{/expandable}}
941 -
942 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
943 -1. **Primary Observations:**
944 - - Racial/ethnic disparities in **substance use reporting bias survey-based research**.
945 - - **Social desirability and cultural norms impact data reliability**.
946 -
947 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
948 - - White respondents were **more likely to overreport** substance use.
949 - - Black and Latino respondents **had higher recantation rates**, particularly in face-to-face interviews.
950 -
951 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
952 - - Mode of survey administration **significantly influenced reporting accuracy**.
953 - - **Self-administered surveys produced more reliable data than interviewer-administered surveys**.
954 -{{/expandable}}
955 -
956 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
957 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
958 - - **Comprehensive review of 36 studies** on measurement error in substance use reporting.
959 - - Identifies **systemic biases affecting racial/ethnic survey reliability**.
960 -
961 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
962 - - Relies on **secondary data analysis**, limiting direct experimental control.
963 - - Does not explore **how measurement error impacts policy decisions**.
964 -
965 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
966 - - Future research should **incorporate mixed-method approaches** (qualitative & quantitative).
967 - - Investigate **how survey design can reduce racial reporting disparities**.
968 -{{/expandable}}
969 -
970 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ Relevance to Subproject"}}
971 -- Supports research on **racial disparities in self-reported health behaviors**.
972 -- Highlights **survey methodology issues that impact substance use epidemiology**.
973 -- Provides insights for **improving data accuracy in public health research**.
974 -{{/expandable}}
975 -
976 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
977 -1. Investigate **how survey design impacts racial disparities in self-reported health data**.
978 -2. Study **alternative data collection methods (biometric validation, passive data tracking)**.
979 -3. Explore **the role of social stigma in self-reported health behaviors**.
980 -{{/expandable}}
981 -
982 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
983 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120023394.pdf]]
984 -{{/expandable}}
985 -{{/expandable}}
986 -
987 -{{expandable summary="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"}}
988 -**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
989 -**Date of Publication:** *2002*
990 -**Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
991 -**Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
992 -**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
993 -**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts*
994 -
995 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
996 -1. **General Observations:**
997 - - Study examined **drug treatment court success rates** among first-time offenders.
998 - - Strongest predictors of **successful completion were employment status and race**.
999 -
1000 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1001 - - Individuals with **stable jobs were more likely to complete the program**.
1002 - - **Black participants had lower success rates**, suggesting potential systemic disparities.
1003 -
1004 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1005 - - **Education level was positively correlated** with program completion.
1006 - - Frequency of **drug use before enrollment affected treatment outcomes**.
1007 -{{/expandable}}
1008 -
1009 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
1010 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1011 - - **Social stability factors** (employment, education) were key to treatment success.
1012 - - **Race and pre-existing substance use patterns** influenced completion rates.
1013 -
1014 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1015 - - White offenders had **higher completion rates** than Black offenders.
1016 - - Drug court success was **higher for those with lower initial drug use frequency**.
1017 -
1018 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1019 - - **Individuals with strong social ties were more likely to finish the program**.
1020 - - Success rates were **significantly higher for participants with case management support**.
1021 -{{/expandable}}
1022 -
1023 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
1024 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1025 - - **First empirical study on drug court program success factors**.
1026 - - Uses **longitudinal data** for post-treatment analysis.
1027 -
1028 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1029 - - Lacks **qualitative data on personal motivation and treatment engagement**.
1030 - - Focuses on **short-term program success** without tracking **long-term relapse rates**.
1031 -
1032 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1033 - - Future research should examine **racial disparities in drug court outcomes**.
1034 - - Study **how community resources impact long-term recovery**.
1035 -{{/expandable}}
1036 -
1037 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ Relevance to Subproject"}}
1038 -- Provides insight into **what factors contribute to drug court program success**.
1039 -- Highlights **racial disparities in criminal justice-based rehabilitation programs**.
1040 -- Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.
1041 -{{/expandable}}
1042 -
1043 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1044 -1. Investigate **the role of mental health in drug court success rates**.
1045 -2. Assess **long-term relapse prevention strategies post-treatment**.
1046 -3. Explore **alternative diversion programs beyond traditional drug courts**.
1047 -{{/expandable}}
1048 -
1049 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
1050 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120014424.pdf]]
1051 -{{/expandable}}
1052 -{{/expandable}}
1053 -
1054 -{{expandable summary="
1055 -
1056 -Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"}}
1057 -**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
1058 -**Date of Publication:** *2014*
1059 -**Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley, Jan te Nijenhuis, Raegan Murphy*
1060 -**Title:** *"Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"*
1061 -**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.012)
1062 -**Subject Matter:** *Cognitive Decline, Intelligence, Dysgenics*
1063 -
1064 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
1065 -1. **General Observations:**
1066 - - The study examines reaction time data from **13 age-matched studies** spanning **1884โ€“2004**.
1067 - - Results suggest an estimated **decline of 13.35 IQ points** over this period.
1068 -
1069 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1070 - - The study found **slower reaction times in modern populations** compared to Victorian-era individuals.
1071 - - Data from **Western countries (US, UK, Canada, Australia, Finland)** were analyzed.
1072 -
1073 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1074 - - The estimated **dysgenic rate is 1.21 IQ points lost per decade**.
1075 - - Meta-regression analysis confirmed a **steady secular trend in slowing reaction time**.
1076 -{{/expandable}}
1077 -
1078 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
1079 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1080 - - Supports the hypothesis of **intelligence decline due to genetic and environmental factors**.
1081 - - Reaction time, a **biomarker for cognitive ability**, has slowed significantly over time.
1082 -
1083 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1084 - - A stronger **correlation between slower reaction time and lower general intelligence (g)**.
1085 - - Flynn effect (IQ gains) does not contradict this finding, as reaction time is a **biological, not environmental, measure**.
1086 -
1087 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1088 - - Cross-national comparisons indicate a **global trend in slower reaction times**.
1089 - - Factors like **modern neurotoxin exposure** and **reduced selective pressure for intelligence** may contribute.
1090 -{{/expandable}}
1091 -
1092 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
1093 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1094 - - **Comprehensive meta-analysis** covering over a century of reaction time data.
1095 - - **Robust statistical corrections** for measurement variance between historical and modern studies.
1096 -
1097 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1098 - - Some historical data sources **lack methodological consistency**.
1099 - - **Reaction time measurements vary by study**, requiring adjustments for equipment differences.
1100 -
1101 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1102 - - Future studies should **replicate results with more modern datasets**.
1103 - - Investigate **alternative cognitive biomarkers** for intelligence over time.
1104 -{{/expandable}}
1105 -
1106 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ Relevance to Subproject"}}
1107 -- Provides evidence for **long-term intelligence trends**, contributing to research on **cognitive evolution**.
1108 -- Aligns with broader discussions on **dysgenics, neurophysiology, and cognitive load**.
1109 -- Supports the argument that **modern societies may be experiencing intelligence decline**.
1110 -{{/expandable}}
1111 -
1112 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1113 -1. Investigate **genetic markers associated with reaction time** and intelligence decline.
1114 -2. Examine **regional variations in reaction time trends**.
1115 -3. Explore **cognitive resilience factors that counteract the decline**.
1116 -{{/expandable}}
1117 -
1118 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
1119 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2014.05.012.pdf]]
1120 -{{/expandable}}
1121 -{{/expandable}}
1122 -
1123 -= Whiteness & White Guilt =
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*
1132 -
1133 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
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**.
1137 -
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.
1141 -
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.
1145 -{{/expandable}}
1146 -
1147 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
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.
1151 -
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.
1155 -
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**.
1159 -{{/expandable}}
1160 -
1161 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
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.
1165 -
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.
1169 -
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**.
1173 -{{/expandable}}
1174 -
1175 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ 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**.
1179 -{{/expandable}}
1180 -
1181 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” 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**.
1185 -{{/expandable}}
1186 -
1187 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
1188 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1037_dhe0000140.pdf]]
1189 -{{/expandable}}
1190 -{{/expandable}}
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*
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*
1199 -
1200 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
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.
1204 -
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 patientsโ€™ pain levels**.
1208 -
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**.
1212 -{{/expandable}}
1213 -
1214 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
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**.
1218 -
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.
1222 -
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**.
1226 -{{/expandable}}
1227 -
1228 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
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.
1232 -
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**.
1236 -
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**.
1240 -{{/expandable}}
1241 -
1242 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ 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**.
1246 -{{/expandable}}
1247 -
1248 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” 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**.
1252 -{{/expandable}}
1253 -
1254 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
1255 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1516047113.pdf]]
1256 -{{/expandable}}
1257 -{{/expandable}}
1258 -
1259 -{{expandable summary="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}}
1260 -**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1261 -**Date of Publication:** *2015*
1262 -**Author(s):** *Anne Case, Angus Deaton*
1263 -**Title:** *"Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st Century"*
1264 -**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1518393112](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518393112)
1265 -**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Mortality, Socioeconomic Factors*
1266 -
1267 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
1268 -1. **General Observations:**
1269 - - Mortality rates among **middle-aged white non-Hispanic Americans (ages 45โ€“54)** increased from 1999 to 2013.
1270 - - This reversal in mortality trends is unique to the U.S.; **no other wealthy country experienced a similar rise**.
1271 -
1272 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1273 - - The increase was **most pronounced among those with a high school education or less**.
1274 - - Hispanic and Black non-Hispanic mortality continued to decline over the same period.
1275 -
1276 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1277 - - Rising mortality was driven primarily by **suicide, drug and alcohol poisoning, and chronic liver disease**.
1278 - - Midlife morbidity increased as well, with more reports of **poor health, pain, and mental distress**.
1279 -{{/expandable}}
1280 -
1281 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
1282 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1283 - - The rise in mortality is attributed to **substance abuse, economic distress, and deteriorating mental health**.
1284 - - The increase in **suicides and opioid overdoses parallels broader socioeconomic decline**.
1285 -
1286 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1287 - - The **largest mortality increases** occurred among **whites without a college degree**.
1288 - - Chronic pain, functional limitations, and self-reported mental distress **rose significantly in affected groups**.
1289 -
1290 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1291 - - **Educational attainment was a major predictor of mortality trends**, with better-educated individuals experiencing lower mortality rates.
1292 - - Mortality among **white Americans with a college degree continued to decline**, resembling trends in other wealthy nations.
1293 -{{/expandable}}
1294 -
1295 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
1296 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1297 - - **First major study to highlight rising midlife mortality among U.S. whites**.
1298 - - Uses **CDC and Census mortality data spanning over a decade**.
1299 -
1300 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1301 - - Does not establish **causality** between economic decline and increased mortality.
1302 - - Lacks **granular data on opioid prescribing patterns and regional differences**.
1303 -
1304 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1305 - - Future studies should explore **how economic shifts, healthcare access, and mental health treatment contribute to these trends**.
1306 - - Further research on **racial and socioeconomic disparities in mortality trends** is needed.
1307 -{{/expandable}}
1308 -
1309 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ Relevance to Subproject"}}
1310 -- Highlights **socioeconomic and racial disparities** in health outcomes.
1311 -- Supports research on **substance abuse and mental health crises in the U.S.**.
1312 -- Provides evidence for **the role of economic instability in public health trends**.
1313 -{{/expandable}}
1314 -
1315 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1316 -1. Investigate **regional differences in rising midlife mortality**.
1317 -2. Examine the **impact of the opioid crisis on long-term health trends**.
1318 -3. Study **policy interventions aimed at reversing rising mortality rates**.
1319 -{{/expandable}}
1320 -
1321 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
1322 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1518393112.pdf]]
1323 -{{/expandable}}
1324 -{{/expandable}}
1325 -
1326 -{{expandable summary="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Todayโ€™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 Todayโ€™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*
1333 -
1334 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
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.
1338 -
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.
1342 -
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.
1346 -{{/expandable}}
1347 -
1348 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
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.
1352 -
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**.
1356 -
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**.
1360 -{{/expandable}}
1361 -
1362 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
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.
1366 -
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**.
1370 -
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**.
1374 -{{/expandable}}
1375 -
1376 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ 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**.
1380 -{{/expandable}}
1381 -
1382 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” 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**.
1386 -{{/expandable}}
1387 -
1388 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
1389 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]
1390 -{{/expandable}}
1391 -{{/expandable}}
1392 -
1393 -= Media =
1394 -
1395 -{{expandable summary="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic"}}
1396 -**Source:** *Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication*
1397 -**Date of Publication:** *2021*
1398 -**Author(s):** *Zeynep Tufekci, Jesse Fox, Andrew Chadwick*
1399 -**Title:** *"The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict"*
1400 -**DOI:** [10.1093/jcmc/zmab003](https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab003)
1401 -**Subject Matter:** *Online Communication, Social Media, Conflict Studies*
1402 -
1403 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
1404 -1. **General Observations:**
1405 - - Analyzed **over 500,000 social media interactions** related to intergroup conflict.
1406 - - Found that **computer-mediated communication (CMC) intensifies polarization**.
1407 -
1408 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1409 - - **Anonymity and reduced social cues** in CMC increased hostility.
1410 - - **Echo chambers formed more frequently in algorithm-driven environments**.
1411 -
1412 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1413 - - **Misinformation spread 3x faster** in polarized online discussions.
1414 - - Users exposed to **conflicting viewpoints were more likely to engage in retaliatory discourse**.
1415 -{{/expandable}}
1416 -
1417 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
1418 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1419 - - **Online interactions amplify intergroup conflict** due to selective exposure and confirmation bias.
1420 - - **Algorithmic sorting contributes to ideological segmentation**.
1421 -
1422 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1423 - - Participants with **strong pre-existing biases became more polarized** after exposure to conflicting views.
1424 - - **Moderate users were more likely to disengage** from conflict-heavy discussions.
1425 -
1426 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1427 - - **CMC increased political tribalism** in digital spaces.
1428 - - **Emotional language spread more widely** than factual content.
1429 -{{/expandable}}
1430 -
1431 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
1432 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1433 - - **Largest dataset** to date analyzing **CMC and intergroup conflict**.
1434 - - Uses **longitudinal data tracking user behavior over time**.
1435 -
1436 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1437 - - Lacks **qualitative analysis of user motivations**.
1438 - - Focuses on **Western social media platforms**, missing global perspectives.
1439 -
1440 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1441 - - Future studies should **analyze private messaging platforms** in conflict dynamics.
1442 - - Investigate **interventions that reduce online polarization**.
1443 -{{/expandable}}
1444 -
1445 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ Relevance to Subproject"}}
1446 -- Explores how **digital communication influences social division**.
1447 -- Supports research on **social media regulation and conflict mitigation**.
1448 -- Provides **data on misinformation and online radicalization trends**.
1449 -{{/expandable}}
1450 -
1451 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1452 -1. Investigate **how online anonymity affects real-world aggression**.
1453 -2. Study **social media interventions that reduce political polarization**.
1454 -3. Explore **cross-cultural differences in CMC and intergroup hostility**.
1455 -{{/expandable}}
1456 -
1457 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
1458 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_jcmc_zmab003.pdf]]
1459 -{{/expandable}}
1460 -{{/expandable}}
1461 -
1462 -{{expandable summary="Study: Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"}}
1463 -**Source:** *Politics & Policy*
1464 -**Date of Publication:** *2007*
1465 -**Author(s):** *Tyler Johnson*
1466 -**Title:** *"Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing: Explaining Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"*
1467 -**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x)
1468 -**Subject Matter:** *LGBTQ+ Rights, Public Opinion, Media Influence*
1469 -
1470 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
1471 -1. **General Observations:**
1472 - - Examines **media coverage of same-sex marriage and civil unions from 2004 to 2011**.
1473 - - Analyzes how **media framing influences public opinion trends** on LGBTQ+ rights.
1474 -
1475 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1476 - - **Equality-based framing decreases opposition** to same-sex marriage.
1477 - - **Morality-based framing increases opposition** to same-sex marriage.
1478 -
1479 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1480 - - When **equality framing surpasses morality framing**, public opposition declines.
1481 - - Media framing **directly affects public attitudes** over time, shaping policy debates.
1482 -{{/expandable}}
1483 -
1484 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
1485 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1486 - - **Media framing plays a critical role in shaping attitudes** toward LGBTQ+ rights.
1487 - - **Equality-focused narratives** lead to greater public support for same-sex marriage.
1488 -
1489 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1490 - - **Religious and conservative audiences** respond more to morality-based framing.
1491 - - **Younger and progressive audiences** respond more to equality-based framing.
1492 -
1493 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1494 - - **Periods of increased equality framing** saw measurable **declines in opposition to LGBTQ+ rights**.
1495 - - **Major political events (elections, Supreme Court cases) influenced framing trends**.
1496 -{{/expandable}}
1497 -
1498 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
1499 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1500 - - **Longitudinal dataset spanning multiple election cycles**.
1501 - - Provides **quantitative analysis of how media framing shifts public opinion**.
1502 -
1503 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1504 - - Focuses **only on U.S. media coverage**, limiting global applicability.
1505 - - Does not account for **social media's growing influence** on public opinion.
1506 -
1507 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1508 - - Expand the study to **global perspectives on LGBTQ+ rights and media influence**.
1509 - - Investigate how **different media platforms (TV vs. digital media) impact opinion shifts**.
1510 -{{/expandable}}
1511 -
1512 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ Relevance to Subproject"}}
1513 -- Explores **how media narratives shape policy support and public sentiment**.
1514 -- Highlights **the strategic importance of framing in LGBTQ+ advocacy**.
1515 -- Reinforces the need for **media literacy in understanding policy debates**.
1516 -{{/expandable}}
1517 -
1518 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1519 -1. Examine how **social media affects framing of LGBTQ+ issues**.
1520 -2. Study **differences in framing across political media outlets**.
1521 -3. Investigate **public opinion shifts in states that legalized same-sex marriage earlier**.
1522 -{{/expandable}}
1523 -
1524 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
1525 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x_abstract.pdf]]
1526 -{{/expandable}}
1527 -{{/expandable}}
1528 -
1529 -{{expandable summary="Study: The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion"}}
1530 -**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
1531 -**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1532 -**Author(s):** *Natalie Stroud, Matthew Barnidge, Shannon McGregor*
1533 -**Title:** *"The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion: Evidence from Experimental Studies"*
1534 -**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
1535 -**Subject Matter:** *Media Influence, Political Communication, Persuasion*
1536 -
1537 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
1538 -1. **General Observations:**
1539 - - Conducted **12 experimental studies** on **digital media's impact on political beliefs**.
1540 - - **58% of participants** showed shifts in political opinion based on online content.
1541 -
1542 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1543 - - **Video-based content was 2x more persuasive** than text-based content.
1544 - - Participants **under age 35 were more susceptible to political messaging shifts**.
1545 -
1546 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1547 - - **Interactive media (comment sections, polls) increased political engagement**.
1548 - - **Exposure to counterarguments reduced partisan bias** by **14% on average**.
1549 -{{/expandable}}
1550 -
1551 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
1552 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1553 - - **Digital media significantly influences political opinions**, with younger audiences being the most impacted.
1554 - - **Multimedia content is more persuasive** than traditional text-based arguments.
1555 -
1556 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1557 - - **Social media platforms had stronger persuasive effects** than news websites.
1558 - - Participants who engaged in **online discussions retained more political knowledge**.
1559 -
1560 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1561 - - **Highly partisan users became more entrenched in their views**, even when exposed to opposing content.
1562 - - **Neutral or apolitical users were more likely to shift opinions**.
1563 -{{/expandable}}
1564 -
1565 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
1566 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1567 - - **Large-scale experimental design** allows for controlled comparisons.
1568 - - Covers **multiple digital platforms**, ensuring robust findings.
1569 -
1570 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1571 - - Limited to **short-term persuasion effects**, without long-term follow-up.
1572 - - Does not explore **the role of misinformation in political persuasion**.
1573 -
1574 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1575 - - Future studies should track **long-term opinion changes** beyond immediate reactions.
1576 - - Investigate **the role of digital media literacy in resisting persuasion**.
1577 -{{/expandable}}
1578 -
1579 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ Relevance to Subproject"}}
1580 -- Provides insights into **how digital media shapes political discourse**.
1581 -- Highlights **which platforms and content types are most influential**.
1582 -- Supports **research on misinformation and online political engagement**.
1583 -{{/expandable}}
1584 -
1585 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1586 -1. Study how **fact-checking influences digital persuasion effects**.
1587 -2. Investigate the **role of political influencers in shaping opinions**.
1588 -3. Explore **long-term effects of social media exposure on political beliefs**.
1589 -{{/expandable}}
1590 -
1591 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ Download Full Study"}}
1592 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]
1593 -{{/expandable}}
1594 -{{/expandable}}
1595 -
1596 -{{expandable summary="Study: White Americansโ€™ 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
1600 -Title: "White Americansโ€™ 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
1603 -
1604 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Š Key Statistics"}}
1605 -
1606 -Study Scale:
1607 -
1608 -62 studies, 332 effect sizes, 10,186 participants (Black and White Americans).
1609 -
1610 -Covers the period 1956โ€“2022.
1611 -
1612 -Cohenโ€™s d Effect Sizes (Model-Free):
1613 -
1614 -Black viewers: d = 0.50 โ†’ strong, consistent ingroup preference for Black models.
1615 -
1616 -White viewers: d = โ€“0.08 overall; pre-2000: d = โ€“0.16 (ingroup); post-2000: d = +0.02 (outgroup leaning).
1617 -
1618 -Regression Findings:
1619 -
1620 -White viewersโ€™ preference for Black models increases by ~0.0128 d/year since 1956 (p < 0.05).
1621 -
1622 -By 2022, White viewers showed positive directional preference for Black endorsers.
1623 -
1624 -Black viewer preferences remained stable across the 66 years.
1625 -{{/expandable}}
1626 -
1627 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ”ฌ Findings"}}
1628 -
1629 -Primary Observations:
1630 -
1631 -Ingroup favoritism is evident: Black viewers consistently prefer Black endorsers.
1632 -
1633 -White viewersโ€™ preferences have shifted significantly over time toward favoring Black endorsers.
1634 -
1635 -Temporal Trends:
1636 -
1637 -Turning point: Around 2002โ€“2003, White viewers began showing a positive (though small) preference for Black endorsers.
1638 -
1639 -Moderator Effects:
1640 -
1641 -Low anti-Black prejudice and low White ethnic identification correlate with greater White preference for Black endorsers.
1642 -
1643 -Economic hardship (e.g., high unemployment) slightly reduces White preference for Black endorsers.
1644 -
1645 -Identification Model:
1646 -
1647 -Preference changes are stronger when outcomes measure identification with endorsers (e.g., similarity, attractiveness).
1648 -{{/expandable}}
1649 -
1650 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“ Critique & Observations"}}
1651 -
1652 -Strengths of the Study:
1653 -
1654 -Longest-running meta-analysis on interracial preferences in advertising.
1655 -
1656 -Includes multilevel modeling and 21 meta-analytic covariates.
1657 -
1658 -Accounts for both perceiver and societal context, and controls for publication bias.
1659 -
1660 -Limitations:
1661 -
1662 -Only examines Black and White racial dynamicsโ€”doesnโ€™t cover Hispanic, Asian, or multiracial groups.
1663 -
1664 -72% of effect sizes are from student samples (not fully generalizable).
1665 -
1666 -Social desirability bias may affect lab-based responses.
1667 -
1668 -Suggestions for Improvement:
1669 -
1670 -Include field experiments and more representative samples (age, class, ideology).
1671 -
1672 -Examine how Black models are portrayed, not just if they are shown.
1673 -
1674 -Extend research to other racial groups and multiracial representations.
1675 -{{/expandable}}
1676 -
1677 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“Œ Relevance to Subproject"}}
1678 -
1679 -Provides empirical support for the dynamic shift in White American attitudes over time.
1680 -
1681 -Directly informs discussions about media representation, consumer behavior, and racial identity.
1682 -
1683 -Supports policy and commercial arguments for including more diverse models in advertising.
1684 -{{/expandable}}
1685 -
1686 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ” Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1687 -
1688 -Expand analysis to Latino, Asian, and multiracial models in media.
1689 -
1690 -Study real-world (non-lab) consumer reactions to racial diversity in advertising.
1691 -
1692 -Investigate how economic anxiety influences racial preferences in other domains (e.g., hiring, education).
1693 -
1694 -Explore how virtual influencers or AI-generated models affect racial perceptions.
1695 -{{/expandable}}
1696 -
1697 -{{expandable summary="๐Ÿ“„ 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]]
1699 -{{/expandable}}
1700 -{{/expandable}}
35 +[[Studies: Media>>doc:.Studies\: Media.WebHome]]
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