0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

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

From version 111.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 03:15
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 117.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 05:44
Change comment: Uploaded new attachment "Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf", version 1.1

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -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 -Cohens 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 20022003, White viewers began showing a positive (though small) preference for Black endorsers.
1715 +Studies from the 1960s1980s 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—doesnt 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 +
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