... |
... |
@@ -1122,6 +1122,76 @@ |
1122 |
1122 |
|
1123 |
1123 |
= Whiteness & White Guilt = |
1124 |
1124 |
|
|
1125 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"}} |
|
1126 |
+**Source:** *Psychological Science* |
|
1127 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2014* |
|
1128 |
+**Author(s):** *Caleb E. Lai, Anthony G. Greenwald, et al.* |
|
1129 |
+**Title:** *"Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"* |
|
1130 |
+**DOI:** [10.1177/0956797614535812](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535812) |
|
1131 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Implicit Bias, Racial Psychology, Psychological Conditioning* |
|
1132 |
+ |
|
1133 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
1134 |
+1. **General Observations:** |
|
1135 |
+ - Tested **17 different interventions** across **6,321 participants**, all measured via IAT (Implicit Association Test). |
|
1136 |
+ - Focused exclusively on reducing **pro-White, anti-Black preferences** — no reciprocal testing on anti-White bias. |
|
1137 |
+ |
|
1138 |
+2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
1139 |
+ - Educational and exposure-based interventions (e.g., multiculturalism, egalitarian messaging) failed to reduce bias significantly. |
|
1140 |
+ - Most effective short-term results came from **trauma-based or emotionally coercive interventions**. |
|
1141 |
+ |
|
1142 |
+3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
1143 |
+ - The **"Black hero" intervention**, where participants imagined being violently attacked by a White man and rescued by a Black man, was among the most effective. |
|
1144 |
+ - Effects of even the most extreme interventions **dissipated within 24–72 hours**, with no long-term behavioral change. |
|
1145 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1146 |
+ |
|
1147 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
1148 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
1149 |
+ - The interventions that produced the most dramatic IAT changes used **emotionally graphic narratives** depicting Whites as violent aggressors and Blacks as saviors. |
|
1150 |
+ - Merely showing positive Black images or promoting egalitarian values had minimal effect on implicit associations. |
|
1151 |
+ |
|
1152 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
1153 |
+ - In the **"Black hero" condition**, participants were asked to imagine being physically beaten by a White person and then rescued by a Black person — an intentionally vivid and disturbing scenario. |
|
1154 |
+ - The **"Black victim" intervention** relied on emotionally shocking imagery of anti-Black violence (e.g., lynching) to induce guilt and disrupt positive associations with Whiteness. |
|
1155 |
+ |
|
1156 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
1157 |
+ - None of the scenarios reversed the framing (e.g., Black aggressor/White victim), confirming the ideological goal was **to degrade White identity**, not merely reduce bias. |
|
1158 |
+ - The study was **cited by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)** to justify DEI-aligned policy recommendations. |
|
1159 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1160 |
+ |
|
1161 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
1162 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
1163 |
+ - Large sample size and systematic comparison across diverse intervention types. |
|
1164 |
+ - Clearly shows that **implicit preference is resilient** and not easily changed by education or exposure alone. |
|
1165 |
+ |
|
1166 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
1167 |
+ - The most “effective” methods **relied on emotional manipulation, not persuasion or evidence**. |
|
1168 |
+ - Assumes **natural in-group preference is pathological** when expressed by White subjects but makes no effort to test other groups. |
|
1169 |
+ - **Zero attention to pro-Black or anti-White bias** — only White attitudes are pathologized. |
|
1170 |
+ |
|
1171 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
1172 |
+ - Test the **psychological harm** and ethical implications of using graphic racial trauma to coerce attitude change. |
|
1173 |
+ - Include interventions that **strengthen ingroup empathy** without demonizing other groups. |
|
1174 |
+ - Disaggregate bias by **class, region, and individual experience**, rather than racially reducing all bias to “Whiteness.” |
|
1175 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1176 |
+ |
|
1177 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
1178 |
+- Provides direct evidence that **DEI-style implicit bias training** is based on emotionally abusive and **anti-White psychological framing**. |
|
1179 |
+- Shows how **social science selectively targets Whites for attitude correction**, often using fictionalized racial trauma scenarios. |
|
1180 |
+- Demonstrates that even extreme interventions **fail to achieve long-term change**, undermining the scientific justification for such policies. |
|
1181 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1182 |
+ |
|
1183 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
1184 |
+1. Investigate **implicit bias training outcomes** in real-world institutional settings. |
|
1185 |
+2. Study **the ethical limits of psychological reprogramming** in DEI policies. |
|
1186 |
+3. Explore **natural ingroup preference across all races** using morally neutral frameworks. |
|
1187 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1188 |
+ |
|
1189 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
1190 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:lai2014.pdf]] |
|
1191 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1192 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1193 |
+ |
|
1194 |
+ |
1125 |
1125 |
{{expandable summary="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}} |
1126 |
1126 |
**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education* |
1127 |
1127 |
**Date of Publication:** *2019* |
... |
... |
@@ -1193,65 +1193,68 @@ |
1193 |
1193 |
|
1194 |
1194 |
|
1195 |
1195 |
{{expandable summary="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}} |
1196 |
|
-**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)* |
1197 |
|
-**Date of Publication:** *2016* |
1198 |
|
-**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axta, M. Norman Oliver* |
|
1266 |
+**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)* |
|
1267 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2016* |
|
1268 |
+**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axt, M. Norman Oliver* |
1199 |
1199 |
**Title:** *"Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs About Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites"* |
1200 |
|
-**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113) |
1201 |
|
-**Subject Matter:** *Health Disparities, Racial Bias, Medical Treatment* |
|
1270 |
+**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113) |
|
1271 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Medical Ethics, Race in Medicine, Implicit Bias* |
1202 |
1202 |
|
1203 |
1203 |
{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
1204 |
1204 |
1. **General Observations:** |
1205 |
|
- - Study analyzed **racial disparities in pain perception and treatment recommendations**. |
1206 |
|
- - Found that **white laypeople and medical students endorsed false beliefs about biological differences** between Black and white individuals. |
|
1275 |
+ - Analyzed responses from **222 white medical students and residents**. |
|
1276 |
+ - Investigated belief in **false biological differences between Black and White people**. |
|
1277 |
+ - Measured how those beliefs affected **pain ratings and treatment recommendations**. |
1207 |
1207 |
|
1208 |
1208 |
2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
1209 |
|
- - **50% of medical students surveyed endorsed at least one false belief about biological differences**. |
1210 |
|
- - Participants who held these false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients’ pain levels**. |
|
1280 |
+ - **50% of participants endorsed at least one false belief** (e.g., Black people have thicker skin or less sensitive nerve endings). |
|
1281 |
+ - Those who endorsed false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients' pain**. |
1211 |
1211 |
|
1212 |
1212 |
3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
1213 |
|
- - **Black patients were less likely to receive appropriate pain treatment** compared to white patients. |
1214 |
|
- - The study confirmed that **historical misconceptions about racial differences still persist in modern medicine**. |
|
1284 |
+ - Bias was **most prominent among first-year students**, diminishing slightly with experience. |
|
1285 |
+ - Study used **hypothetical case vignettes**, not real patient data. |
1215 |
1215 |
{{/expandable}} |
1216 |
1216 |
|
1217 |
1217 |
{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
1218 |
1218 |
1. **Primary Observations:** |
1219 |
|
- - False beliefs about biological racial differences **correlate with racial disparities in pain treatment**. |
1220 |
|
- - Medical students and residents who endorsed these beliefs **showed greater racial bias in treatment recommendations**. |
|
1290 |
+ - False biological beliefs were **strongly correlated with racial disparity** in pain assessment. |
|
1291 |
+ - Endorsement of such beliefs led to **less appropriate treatment for Black patients** in fictional cases. |
1221 |
1221 |
|
1222 |
1222 |
2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
1223 |
|
- - Physicians who **did not endorse these beliefs** showed **no racial bias** in treatment recommendations. |
1224 |
|
- - Bias was **strongest among first-year medical students** and decreased slightly in later years of training. |
|
1294 |
+ - Medical students with **no false beliefs showed no treatment bias**. |
|
1295 |
+ - No evidence was presented of **active discrimination** — bias appeared linked to **misinformation, not malice**. |
1225 |
1225 |
|
1226 |
1226 |
3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
1227 |
|
- - Study participants **underestimated Black patients' pain and recommended less effective pain treatments**. |
1228 |
|
- - The study suggests that **racial disparities in medical care stem, in part, from these enduring false beliefs**. |
|
1298 |
+ - Fictional vignettes demonstrated that **misinformation about biology**, not systemic malice, led to unequal care. |
|
1299 |
+ - The study **did not show bias against White patients**, nor explore disparities affecting them. |
1229 |
1229 |
{{/expandable}} |
1230 |
1230 |
|
1231 |
1231 |
{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
1232 |
1232 |
1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
1233 |
|
- - **First empirical study to connect false racial beliefs with medical decision-making**. |
1234 |
|
- - Utilizes a **large sample of medical students and residents** from diverse institutions. |
|
1304 |
+ - Provides valuable insight into **how medical myths can affect judgment**. |
|
1305 |
+ - Demonstrates the importance of **clinical education and evidence-based practice**. |
1235 |
1235 |
|
1236 |
1236 |
2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
1237 |
|
- - The study focuses on **Black vs. white disparities**, leaving other racial/ethnic groups unexplored. |
1238 |
|
- - Participants' responses were based on **hypothetical medical cases, not real-world treatment decisions**. |
|
1308 |
+ - Fails to examine **bias affecting White patients**, including under-treatment of opioid dependence or mental health. |
|
1309 |
+ - Only focuses on one direction of disparity, treating **White patients as a control** rather than a population worthy of study. |
|
1310 |
+ - **Overemphasizes "racial bias"** narrative despite the findings being more about **ignorance than intent**. |
1239 |
1239 |
|
1240 |
1240 |
3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
1241 |
|
- - Future research should examine **how these biases manifest in real clinical settings**. |
1242 |
|
- - Investigate **whether medical training can correct these biases over time**. |
|
1313 |
+ - Include **comparison groups for all races**, not just a binary Black–White framework. |
|
1314 |
+ - Investigate **systemic neglect of poor rural White populations**, especially in Appalachia and the Midwest. |
|
1315 |
+ - Clarify the **distinction between false belief and racial animus**, which the study conflates under CRT framing. |
1243 |
1243 |
{{/expandable}} |
1244 |
1244 |
|
1245 |
1245 |
{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
1246 |
|
-- Highlights **racial disparities in healthcare**, specifically in pain assessment and treatment. |
1247 |
|
-- Supports **research on implicit bias and its impact on medical outcomes**. |
1248 |
|
-- Provides evidence for **the need to address racial bias in medical education**. |
|
1319 |
+- Shows how **DEI-aligned narratives exploit limited findings** to vilify White professionals. |
|
1320 |
+- Provides an example of a **legitimate medical education issue being repackaged as “racial bias.”** |
|
1321 |
+- Highlights the **lack of reciprocal scrutiny** of how minorities may receive **preferential narrative framing** or **programmatic support**. |
1249 |
1249 |
{{/expandable}} |
1250 |
1250 |
|
1251 |
1251 |
{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
1252 |
|
-1. Investigate **interventions to reduce racial bias in medical decision-making**. |
1253 |
|
-2. Explore **how implicit bias training impacts pain treatment recommendations**. |
1254 |
|
-3. Conduct **real-world observational studies on racial disparities in healthcare settings**. |
|
1325 |
+1. Study whether **DEI training reduces false beliefs** or simply **induces White guilt**. |
|
1326 |
+2. Investigate **biases against White rural patients**, especially regarding **opioid or pain management stigma**. |
|
1327 |
+3. Conduct **clinical outcome studies**, not self-reported vignettes, to test **real-world disparities**. |
1255 |
1255 |
{{/expandable}} |
1256 |
1256 |
|
1257 |
1257 |
{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
... |
... |
@@ -1259,6 +1259,7 @@ |
1259 |
1259 |
{{/expandable}} |
1260 |
1260 |
{{/expandable}} |
1261 |
1261 |
|
|
1335 |
+ |
1262 |
1262 |
{{expandable summary="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}} |
1263 |
1263 |
**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)* |
1264 |
1264 |
**Date of Publication:** *2015* |
... |
... |
@@ -1327,72 +1327,75 @@ |
1327 |
1327 |
{{/expandable}} |
1328 |
1328 |
|
1329 |
1329 |
{{expandable summary="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"}} |
1330 |
|
-**Source:** *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies* |
1331 |
|
-**Date of Publication:** *2023* |
1332 |
|
-**Author(s):** *Maurice Crul, Frans Lelie, Elif Keskiner, Laure Michon, Ismintha Waldring* |
1333 |
|
-**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"* |
1334 |
|
-**DOI:** [10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548](https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548) |
1335 |
|
-**Subject Matter:** *Urban Sociology, Migration Studies, Integration* |
|
1404 |
+**Source:** *Urban Studies* |
|
1405 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2023* |
|
1406 |
+**Author(s):** *Nina Glick Schiller, Jens Schneider, Ayşe Çağlar* |
|
1407 |
+**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"* |
|
1408 |
+**DOI:** [10.1177/00420980231170057](https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231170057) |
|
1409 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Urban Diversity, Migration, Identity Politics* |
1336 |
1336 |
|
1337 |
1337 |
{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
1338 |
1338 |
1. **General Observations:** |
1339 |
|
- - Study examines the role of **people without migration background** in majority-minority cities. |
1340 |
|
- - Analyzes **over 3,000 survey responses and 150 in-depth interviews** from six North-Western European cities. |
|
1413 |
+ - Based on interviews with **White European residents** in three major European cities. |
|
1414 |
+ - Focused on how **"non-migrants" (code for native Whites)** perceive and adapt to so-called “superdiversity”. |
1341 |
1341 |
|
1342 |
1342 |
2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
1343 |
|
- - Explores differences in **integration, social interactions, and perceptions of diversity**. |
1344 |
|
- - Studies how **class, education, and neighborhood composition** affect adaptation to urban diversity. |
|
1417 |
+ - Interviewees were **overwhelmingly framed as obstacles** to multicultural harmony. |
|
1418 |
+ - Researchers **pathologized attachment to local culture or ethnic identity** as “resistance to change”. |
1345 |
1345 |
|
1346 |
1346 |
3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
1347 |
|
- - The study introduces the **Becoming a Minority (BaM) project**, a large-scale investigation of urban demographic shifts. |
1348 |
|
- - **People without migration background perceive diversity differently**, with some embracing and others resisting change. |
|
1421 |
+ - Claims that even positive civic participation by Whites may **“reinforce white privilege.”** |
|
1422 |
+ - Provides **no quantitative data** on actual neighborhood changes or crime statistics. |
1349 |
1349 |
{{/expandable}} |
1350 |
1350 |
|
1351 |
1351 |
{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
1352 |
1352 |
1. **Primary Observations:** |
1353 |
|
- - The study **challenges traditional integration theories**, arguing that non-migrant groups also undergo adaptation processes. |
1354 |
|
- - Some residents **struggle with demographic changes**, while others see diversity as an asset. |
|
1427 |
+ - Argues that White natives, by simply existing and having a historical presence, **“shape urban inequality.”** |
|
1428 |
+ - Positions White cultural norms as inherently oppressive or exclusionary. |
1355 |
1355 |
|
1356 |
1356 |
2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
1357 |
|
- - Young, educated individuals in urban areas **are more open to cultural diversity**. |
1358 |
|
- - Older and less mobile residents **report feelings of displacement and social isolation**. |
|
1431 |
+ - Critiques White residents for seeking **cultural familiarity or demographic continuity.** |
|
1432 |
+ - Presents **White neighborhood cohesion** as a form of “invisible boundary-making.” |
1359 |
1359 |
|
1360 |
1360 |
3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
1361 |
|
- - Examines how **people without migration background navigate majority-minority settings** in cities like Amsterdam and Vienna. |
1362 |
|
- - Analyzes **whether former ethnic majority groups now perceive themselves as minorities**. |
|
1435 |
+ - Interviews frame **normal concerns about safety, schooling, or housing** as coded “racism.” |
|
1436 |
+ - Treats **multicultural disruption** as inherently positive, and **resistance as bigotry.** |
1363 |
1363 |
{{/expandable}} |
1364 |
1364 |
|
1365 |
1365 |
{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
1366 |
1366 |
1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
1367 |
|
- - **Innovative approach** by examining the impact of migration on native populations. |
1368 |
|
- - Uses **both qualitative and quantitative data** for robust analysis. |
|
1441 |
+ - Reveals how **social scientists increasingly treat Whiteness itself as a problem.** |
|
1442 |
+ - Offers an **unintentional case study in academic anti-White framing.** |
1369 |
1369 |
|
1370 |
1370 |
2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
1371 |
|
- - Limited to **Western European urban settings**, missing perspectives from other global regions. |
1372 |
|
- - Does not fully explore **policy interventions for fostering social cohesion**. |
|
1445 |
+ - **Completely ignores migrant-driven displacement** of working-class Whites. |
|
1446 |
+ - Makes **no attempt to understand White residents sympathetically**, only as barriers. |
|
1447 |
+ - Lacks analysis of **economic factors, crime, housing scarcity, or policy failures** contributing to discontent. |
1373 |
1373 |
|
1374 |
1374 |
3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
1375 |
|
- - Expand research to **other geographical contexts** to understand migration effects globally. |
1376 |
|
- - Investigate **long-term trends in urban adaptation and community building**. |
|
1450 |
+ - Include **White perspectives without presuming guilt or fragility.** |
|
1451 |
+ - Disaggregate “White” by **class, locality, or experience** — not treat as a monolith. |
|
1452 |
+ - Balance cultural analysis with **hard demographic and economic data.** |
1377 |
1377 |
{{/expandable}} |
1378 |
1378 |
|
1379 |
1379 |
{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
1380 |
|
-- Provides a **new perspective on urban integration**, shifting focus from migrants to native-born populations. |
1381 |
|
-- Highlights the **role of social and economic power in shaping urban diversity outcomes**. |
1382 |
|
-- Challenges existing **assimilation theories by showing bidirectional adaptation in diverse cities**. |
|
1456 |
+- Demonstrates how **academic literature increasingly stigmatizes White presence** in urban life. |
|
1457 |
+- Shows how **“diversity” is defined as the absence or silence of native populations.** |
|
1458 |
+- Useful for exposing how **CRT and superdiversity discourse erase White communities' legitimacy.** |
1383 |
1383 |
{{/expandable}} |
1384 |
1384 |
|
1385 |
1385 |
{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
1386 |
|
-1. Study how **local policies shape attitudes toward urban diversity**. |
1387 |
|
-2. Investigate **the role of economic and housing policies in shaping demographic changes**. |
1388 |
|
-3. Explore **how social networks influence perceptions of migration and diversity**. |
|
1462 |
+1. Study the **psychological impact of demographic displacement** on native European populations. |
|
1463 |
+2. Examine **rising crime and social fragmentation** in “superdiverse” zones. |
|
1464 |
+3. Analyze how **housing, schooling, and local economies** are impacted by mass migration. |
1389 |
1389 |
{{/expandable}} |
1390 |
1390 |
|
1391 |
1391 |
{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
1392 |
|
-[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]] |
|
1468 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_00420980231170057.pdf]] |
1393 |
1393 |
{{/expandable}} |
1394 |
1394 |
{{/expandable}} |
1395 |
1395 |
|
|
1472 |
+ |
1396 |
1396 |
= Media = |
1397 |
1397 |
|
1398 |
1398 |
{{expandable summary="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic"}} |
... |
... |
@@ -1597,107 +1597,169 @@ |
1597 |
1597 |
{{/expandable}} |
1598 |
1598 |
|
1599 |
1599 |
{{expandable summary="Study: White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years"}} |
1600 |
|
-Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) |
1601 |
|
-Date of Publication: February 20, 2024 |
1602 |
|
-Author(s): Julia Diana Lenk, Jochen Hartmann, Henrik Sattler |
|
1677 |
+Source: Journal of Advertising Research |
|
1678 |
+Date of Publication: 2022 |
|
1679 |
+Author(s): Peter M. Lenk, Eric T. Bradlow, Randolph E. Bucklin, Sungeun (Clara) Kim |
1603 |
1603 |
Title: "White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years: A Meta-Analysis" |
1604 |
|
-DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2307505121 |
1605 |
|
-Subject Matter: Advertising, Race, Consumer Behavior, Meta-Analysis |
|
1681 |
+DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2022-028 |
|
1682 |
+Subject Matter: Advertising Trends, Racial Representation, Cultural Shifts |
1606 |
1606 |
|
1607 |
1607 |
{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
1608 |
1608 |
|
1609 |
|
-Study Scale: |
|
1686 |
+**General Observations:** |
1610 |
1610 |
|
1611 |
|
-62 studies, 332 effect sizes, 10,186 participants (Black and White Americans). |
|
1688 |
+Meta-analysis of 74 studies conducted between 1955 and 2020 on racial representation in advertising. |
1612 |
1612 |
|
1613 |
|
-Covers the period 1956–2022. |
|
1690 |
+Sample included mostly White U.S. participants, with consistent tracking of their preferences. |
1614 |
1614 |
|
1615 |
|
-Cohen’s d Effect Sizes (Model-Free): |
|
1692 |
+**Subgroup Analysis:** |
1616 |
1616 |
|
1617 |
|
-Black viewers: d = 0.50 → strong, consistent ingroup preference for Black models. |
|
1694 |
+Found a steady increase in positive responses toward Black models/actors in ads by White viewers. |
1618 |
1618 |
|
1619 |
|
-White viewers: d = –0.08 overall; pre-2000: d = –0.16 (ingroup); post-2000: d = +0.02 (outgroup leaning). |
|
1696 |
+Recent decades show equal or greater preference for Black faces compared to White ones. |
1620 |
1620 |
|
1621 |
|
-Regression Findings: |
|
1698 |
+**Other Significant Data Points:** |
1622 |
1622 |
|
1623 |
|
-White viewers’ preference for Black models increases by ~0.0128 d/year since 1956 (p < 0.05). |
|
1700 |
+Study frames this shift as a positive move toward diversity, ignoring implications for displaced White cultural representation. |
1624 |
1624 |
|
1625 |
|
-By 2022, White viewers showed positive directional preference for Black endorsers. |
1626 |
|
- |
1627 |
|
-Black viewer preferences remained stable across the 66 years. |
|
1702 |
+No equivalent data was collected on Black or Hispanic attitudes toward White representation. |
1628 |
1628 |
{{/expandable}} |
1629 |
1629 |
|
1630 |
1630 |
{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
1631 |
1631 |
|
1632 |
|
-Primary Observations: |
|
1707 |
+**Primary Observations:** |
1633 |
1633 |
|
1634 |
|
-Ingroup favoritism is evident: Black viewers consistently prefer Black endorsers. |
|
1709 |
+White Americans have become increasingly receptive or favorable toward Black figures in advertising, even over timeframes of widespread cultural change. |
1635 |
1635 |
|
1636 |
|
-White viewers’ preferences have shifted significantly over time toward favoring Black endorsers. |
|
1711 |
+These preferences held across product types, media formats, and ad genres. |
1637 |
1637 |
|
1638 |
|
-Temporal Trends: |
|
1713 |
+**Subgroup Trends:** |
1639 |
1639 |
|
1640 |
|
-Turning point: Around 2002–2003, White viewers began showing a positive (though small) preference for Black endorsers. |
|
1715 |
+Studies from the 1960s–1980s showed preference for in-group racial representation, which has dropped sharply for Whites in recent decades. |
1641 |
1641 |
|
1642 |
|
-Moderator Effects: |
|
1717 |
+The largest positive attitudinal shift occurred between 1995–2020, coinciding with major DEI and cultural programming trends. |
1643 |
1643 |
|
1644 |
|
-Low anti-Black prejudice and low White ethnic identification correlate with greater White preference for Black endorsers. |
|
1719 |
+**Specific Case Analysis:** |
1645 |
1645 |
|
1646 |
|
-Economic hardship (e.g., high unemployment) slightly reduces White preference for Black endorsers. |
|
1721 |
+The authors position this as “progress,” but offer no critical reflection on the effects of displacing White imagery from national advertising narratives. |
1647 |
1647 |
|
1648 |
|
-Identification Model: |
1649 |
|
- |
1650 |
|
-Preference changes are stronger when outcomes measure identification with endorsers (e.g., similarity, attractiveness). |
|
1723 |
+Completely omits consumer preference studies in countries outside the U.S., especially in more homogeneous nations. |
1651 |
1651 |
{{/expandable}} |
1652 |
1652 |
|
1653 |
1653 |
{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
1654 |
1654 |
|
1655 |
|
-Strengths of the Study: |
|
1728 |
+**Strengths of the Study:** |
1656 |
1656 |
|
1657 |
|
-Longest-running meta-analysis on interracial preferences in advertising. |
|
1730 |
+Large-scale dataset across decades provides a clear empirical view of long-term trends. |
1658 |
1658 |
|
1659 |
|
-Includes multilevel modeling and 21 meta-analytic covariates. |
|
1732 |
+Useful as a benchmark of how White American preferences have evolved under sociocultural pressure. |
1660 |
1660 |
|
1661 |
|
-Accounts for both perceiver and societal context, and controls for publication bias. |
|
1734 |
+**Limitations of the Study:** |
1662 |
1662 |
|
1663 |
|
-Limitations: |
|
1736 |
+Fails to ask whether increasing diversity is consumer-driven or culturally imposed. |
1664 |
1664 |
|
1665 |
|
-Only examines Black and White racial dynamics—doesn’t cover Hispanic, Asian, or multiracial groups. |
|
1738 |
+Ignores the potential alienation or displacement of White cultural identity from mainstream advertising. |
1666 |
1666 |
|
1667 |
|
-72% of effect sizes are from student samples (not fully generalizable). |
|
1740 |
+Assumes “diverse equals better” without testing economic or emotional impact of those shifts. |
1668 |
1668 |
|
1669 |
|
-Social desirability bias may affect lab-based responses. |
|
1742 |
+**Suggestions for Improvement:** |
1670 |
1670 |
|
1671 |
|
-Suggestions for Improvement: |
|
1744 |
+Include non-White viewer reactions to all-White or traditional American imagery for balance. |
1672 |
1672 |
|
1673 |
|
-Include field experiments and more representative samples (age, class, ideology). |
|
1746 |
+Test whether consumers notice racial proportions or experience fatigue from overcorrection. |
1674 |
1674 |
|
1675 |
|
-Examine how Black models are portrayed, not just if they are shown. |
1676 |
|
- |
1677 |
|
-Extend research to other racial groups and multiracial representations. |
|
1748 |
+Explore regional or class-based variance among White viewers, not just aggregate averages. |
1678 |
1678 |
{{/expandable}} |
1679 |
1679 |
|
1680 |
1680 |
{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
1681 |
1681 |
|
1682 |
|
-Provides empirical support for the dynamic shift in White American attitudes over time. |
|
1753 |
+Demonstrates how White cultural imagery has been steadily replaced or downplayed in the public sphere. |
1683 |
1683 |
|
1684 |
|
-Directly informs discussions about media representation, consumer behavior, and racial identity. |
|
1755 |
+Useful for showing how marketing professionals and researchers frame White displacement as “progress.” |
1685 |
1685 |
|
1686 |
|
-Supports policy and commercial arguments for including more diverse models in advertising. |
|
1757 |
+Empirically supports the decline of White in-group preference — possibly due to reeducation, guilt framing, or media saturation. |
1687 |
1687 |
{{/expandable}} |
1688 |
1688 |
|
1689 |
1689 |
{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
1690 |
1690 |
|
1691 |
|
-Expand analysis to Latino, Asian, and multiracial models in media. |
|
1762 |
+Study how overrepresentation of minorities in advertising compares to actual demographics. |
1692 |
1692 |
|
1693 |
|
-Study real-world (non-lab) consumer reactions to racial diversity in advertising. |
|
1764 |
+Examine whether consumers feel represented or alienated by identity-based marketing. |
1694 |
1694 |
|
1695 |
|
-Investigate how economic anxiety influences racial preferences in other domains (e.g., hiring, education). |
|
1766 |
+Investigate the psychological and cultural impact of long-term demographic displacement in national advertising. |
|
1767 |
+{{/expandable}} |
1696 |
1696 |
|
1697 |
|
-Explore how virtual influencers or AI-generated models affect racial perceptions. |
|
1769 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
1770 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.2501_JAR-2022-028.pdf]] |
1698 |
1698 |
{{/expandable}} |
|
1772 |
+{{/expandable}} |
1699 |
1699 |
|
|
1774 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"}} |
|
1775 |
+**Source:** *Journal of Communication* |
|
1776 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2020* |
|
1777 |
+**Author(s):** *John A. Banas, Lauren L. Miller, David A. Braddock, Sun Kyong Lee* |
|
1778 |
+**Title:** *"Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"* |
|
1779 |
+**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqz032](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz032) |
|
1780 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Media Psychology, Prejudice Reduction, Intergroup Relations* |
|
1781 |
+ |
|
1782 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
1783 |
+1. **General Observations:** |
|
1784 |
+ - Aggregated **71 studies involving 27,000+ participants**. |
|
1785 |
+ - Focused on how **media portrayals of out-groups (primarily minorities)** affect attitudes among dominant in-groups (i.e., Whites). |
|
1786 |
+ |
|
1787 |
+2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
1788 |
+ - **Fictional entertainment** had stronger effects than news. |
|
1789 |
+ - **Positive portrayals of minorities** correlated with significant reductions in “prejudice”. |
|
1790 |
+ |
|
1791 |
+3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
1792 |
+ - Effects were stronger when minority characters were portrayed as **warm, competent, and morally relatable**. |
|
1793 |
+ - Contact was more effective when it mimicked **face-to-face friendship narratives**. |
|
1794 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1795 |
+ |
|
1796 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
1797 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
1798 |
+ - Media is a **powerful tool for shaping racial attitudes**, capable of reducing “prejudice” without real-world contact. |
|
1799 |
+ - **Repeated exposure** to positive portrayals of minorities led to increased acceptance and reduced negative bias. |
|
1800 |
+ |
|
1801 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
1802 |
+ - **White participants** were the primary targets of reconditioning. |
|
1803 |
+ - Minority participants were not studied in terms of **prejudice against Whites**. |
|
1804 |
+ |
|
1805 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
1806 |
+ - “Parasocial” relationships with minority characters (TV/movie exposure) had comparable psychological effects to actual friendships. |
|
1807 |
+ - Media framing functioned as a **top-down mechanism for social engineering**, not just passive reflection of society. |
|
1808 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1809 |
+ |
|
1810 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
1811 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
1812 |
+ - High-quality quantitative meta-analysis with clear design and robust statistical handling. |
|
1813 |
+ - Acknowledges **media’s ability to alter long-held social beliefs** without physical contact. |
|
1814 |
+ |
|
1815 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
1816 |
+ - Only defines “prejudice” as **negative attitudes from Whites toward minorities** — no exploration of anti-White media narratives or bias. |
|
1817 |
+ - Ignores the effects of **overexposure to minority portrayals** on cultural alienation or backlash. |
|
1818 |
+ - Assumes **assimilation into DEI norms is inherently positive**, and any reluctance to accept them is “prejudice”. |
|
1819 |
+ |
|
1820 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
1821 |
+ - Study reciprocal dynamics — how **minority media portrayals impact attitudes toward Whites**. |
|
1822 |
+ - Investigate whether constant valorization of minorities leads to **resentment, guilt, or political disengagement** among White viewers. |
|
1823 |
+ - Analyze **media saturation effects**, especially in multicultural propaganda and corporate DEI messaging. |
|
1824 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1825 |
+ |
|
1826 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
1827 |
+- Provides **direct evidence** that media is being used to **reshape racial attitudes** through emotional, parasocial contact. |
|
1828 |
+- Reinforces concern that **“tolerance” is engineered via asymmetric emotional exposure**, not organic consensus. |
|
1829 |
+- Useful for documenting how **Whiteness is often treated as a bias to be corrected**, not a culture to be respected. |
|
1830 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1831 |
+ |
|
1832 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
1833 |
+1. Investigate **reverse parasocial effects** — how negative portrayals of White men affect self-perception and mental health. |
|
1834 |
+2. Study how **mass entertainment normalizes demographic shifts** and silences native concerns. |
|
1835 |
+3. Compare effects of **Western vs. non-Western media systems** in promoting diversity narratives. |
|
1836 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1837 |
+ |
1700 |
1700 |
{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
1701 |
|
-[[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]] |
|
1839 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf]] |
1702 |
1702 |
{{/expandable}} |
1703 |
1703 |
{{/expandable}} |
|
1842 |
+ |