0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

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

From version 113.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 03:53
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 123.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/21 05:21
Change comment: Attachment moved to xwiki:Main Categories.Science & Research.Research at a Glance.Studies\: Dating.WebHome.

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -647,7 +647,440 @@
647 647  
648 648  = Dating =
649 649  
650 -{{expandable summary="Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"}}
650 +{{expandable summary="Study: Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace – Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"}}
651 +**Source:** *Social Forces*
652 +**Date of Publication:** *2016*
653 +**Author(s):** *Stephanie M. Curington, Kevin K. Anderson, and Jennifer Glass*
654 +**Title:** *"Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace: Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"*
655 +**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007](https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007)
656 +**Subject Matter:** *Race and Dating, Multiracial Identity, Online Behavior*
657 +
658 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
659 +1. **General Observations:**
660 + - Data drawn from **over 1 million messaging records** from an online dating site.
661 + - Focused on how **monoracial users** (especially Whites) interact with **multiracial daters**.
662 +
663 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
664 + - **Multiracial Black/White and Asian/White women** received **fewer responses from White men** than their monoracial counterparts.
665 + - White daters showed **stronger preferences for monoracial identities**, particularly **own-race pairings**.
666 +
667 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
668 + - **Multiracial men** fared worse than multiracial women across most pairings.
669 + - **Latina/White and Asian/White multiracial women** were **more positively received by Black and Hispanic men**.
670 +{{/expandable}}
671 +
672 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
673 +1. **Primary Observations:**
674 + - White users demonstrated a clear pattern of **in-group preference**, preferring other White users (monoracial or partially White) over more ambiguous multiracial identities.
675 + - Authors suggest this reflects **"boundary-maintaining behavior"** and **"latent racial bias"**.
676 +
677 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
678 + - **Multiracial women with partial minority backgrounds** were more acceptable to non-White men than White men.
679 + - Multiracial daters were **often treated as ambiguous or “less desirable”** in ways the authors frame as **resistance to racial integration**.
680 +
681 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
682 + - The most rejected group? **Black/White multiracial men**, especially by **White women**, which the authors do not frame as bias in the same way.
683 + - The study shows **asymmetrical concern** — when Whites select inwardly, it's seen as racial boundary policing; when minorities do it, it's not pathologized.
684 +{{/expandable}}
685 +
686 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
687 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
688 + - Large, real-world dataset gives useful behavioral insight into **racial preferences in dating**.
689 + - Raises legitimate questions about **how race, desire, and group identity intersect**.
690 +
691 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
692 + - Frames **normal in-group preference among Whites as "resistance to multiraciality"**, rather than neutral human patterning.
693 + - Ignores **similar or stronger in-group preference among Black and Asian users**, which could indicate *universal patterns*, not White exceptionalism.
694 + - Uses CRT framing to subtly **morally indict Whites for preferring Whites**, while exempting other groups.
695 +
696 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
697 + - Treat all in-group preference equally across racial groups — not just when Whites do it.
698 + - Disaggregate by age, education, and regional variation to control for confounds.
699 + - Consider whether **multiracial identity is ambiguous** by nature and if that ambiguity reduces clarity of signals in dating.
700 +{{/expandable}}
701 +
702 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
703 +- Provides a data point in the **ongoing academic effort to pathologize White selectiveness**, even in private, personal domains like dating.
704 +- Demonstrates how **racial preferences are only considered “problematic” when they preserve White group boundaries**.
705 +- Supports analysis of **how DEI-aligned narratives seek to dissolve in-group loyalty under the guise of openness and inclusion**.
706 +{{/expandable}}
707 +
708 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
709 +1. Investigate how **media and dating platforms reinforce multiracialism as normative** despite evidence of natural in-group selection.
710 +2. Study the **psychological effects of being told your preferences are morally wrong if you're White**.
711 +3. Explore how **multiracial identities are strategically framed** depending on political or cultural goals — exoticization, integration, or guilt projection.
712 +{{/expandable}}
713 +
714 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
715 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Curington et al. - Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Websit.pdf]]
716 +{{/expandable}}
717 +{{/expandable}}
718 +
719 +{{expandable summary="
720 +
721 +
722 +Study: “A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"}}
723 +**Source:** *Sociology of Race and Ethnicity*
724 +**Date of Publication:** *2020*
725 +**Author(s):** *Andrew R. Flores and Ariela Schachter*
726 +**Title:** *"“A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"*
727 +**DOI:** [10.1177/2332649219871232](https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649219871232)
728 +**Subject Matter:** *Interracial Dating, Racial Stereotyping, Online Behavior*
729 +
730 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
731 +1. **General Observations:**
732 + - Used **experimental survey data** from a nationally representative sample (N = 1,070).
733 + - Participants evaluated hypothetical dating profiles of White individuals who expressed interest in Black, Latino, or Asian partners.
734 +
735 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
736 + - **White men interested in Black women** were rated as **less cultured, more aggressive, and lower class**.
737 + - White women interested in Black men were **viewed as less intelligent and more promiscuous**.
738 + - **Interest in Asian partners** did not carry the same negative stereotypes; in some cases, it improved perceived desirability.
739 +
740 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
741 + - **Latino partners** were seen more neutrally, though men who dated them were seen as more “dominant.”
742 + - Across the board, **Whites who dated within their race were viewed most favorably**.
743 +{{/expandable}}
744 +
745 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
746 +1. **Primary Observations:**
747 + - Interracial daters—especially those dating Black individuals—are **subject to negative assumptions** about intelligence, class, and morality.
748 + - Stereotypes persist even in **hypothetical online contexts**, showing deep cultural associations.
749 +
750 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
751 + - White men who prefer Black women face **masculinity-linked stigma**, often tied to “urban” or “ghetto” tropes.
752 + - White women dating Black men are **framed as sexually deviant or socially undesirable**, particularly by other Whites.
753 +
754 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
755 + - The most negatively perceived pairing was **White woman/Black man**, reinforcing long-standing cultural anxieties.
756 + - Respondents judged interracial daters not just by race but by **projected cultural assimilation or rejection**.
757 +{{/expandable}}
758 +
759 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
760 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
761 + - Reveals **latent racial boundaries** in contemporary dating preferences.
762 + - Uses **controlled experimental design** to expose socially unacceptable but real biases.
763 +
764 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
765 + - Relies on **self-reported reactions to profiles**, not real-world dating behavior.
766 + - **Fails to analyze anti-White framing** in the assumptions about White participants who prefer other races.
767 + - Assumes stigma is irrational without investigating **rational in-group preference or cultural concerns**.
768 +
769 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
770 + - Include **reverse scenarios** (e.g., Black or Latino individuals expressing preference for Whites).
771 + - Examine how **media portrayal of interracial couples** influences perception and desirability.
772 + - Account for **class and education overlaps** that could explain perceived traits.
773 +{{/expandable}}
774 +
775 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
776 +- Highlights how **Whites who date outside their race—particularly with Blacks—are pathologized**, even within their own community.
777 +- Shows that **Whiteness is penalized** when paired with non-Whiteness, reinforcing social costs for racial mixing.
778 +- Useful for understanding **how stigma around interracial relationships is unevenly applied**, with anti-White moral overtones.
779 +{{/expandable}}
780 +
781 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
782 +1. Study how **in-group dating preferences differ across races** and are morally interpreted.
783 +2. Investigate how **class and education** affect perceptions of interracial relationships.
784 +3. Examine whether **Whites are disproportionately judged** when deviating from group norms vs. other races.
785 +{{/expandable}}
786 +
787 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
788 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_2332649219871232.pdf]]
789 +{{/expandable}}
790 +{{/expandable}}
791 +
792 +{{expandable summary="
793 +
794 +
795 +Study: E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"}}
796 +**Source:** *National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)*
797 +**Date of Publication:** *2024*
798 +**Author(s):** *Umit Gurun, Daniel Solomon*
799 +**Title:** *"E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"*
800 +**DOI:** [10.3386/w31978](https://doi.org/10.3386/w31978)
801 +**Subject Matter:** *Demography, Social Cohesion, Diversity Effects on Fertility*
802 +
803 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
804 +1. **General Observations:**
805 + - Used large-scale demographic, economic, and census data across **1,800+ U.S. counties**.
806 + - Found a **strong negative correlation between local diversity and White fertility rates**.
807 + - Quantified impact: a 1 SD increase in ethnic diversity leads to a **4–6% drop in birth rates**.
808 +
809 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
810 + - Decline most pronounced among **non-Hispanic Whites**, especially in suburban and semi-urban areas.
811 + - **No significant birth rate drop observed among Hispanic or Black populations** under the same conditions.
812 +
813 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
814 + - Diversity increases linked to **reduced marriage rates**, especially among Whites.
815 + - Authors suggest **“erosion of social cohesion and trust”** as mediating factors.
816 +{{/expandable}}
817 +
818 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
819 +1. **Primary Observations:**
820 + - Ethnic diversity significantly **reduces total fertility rates**, independent of economic or educational variables.
821 + - **Social fragmentation** and perceived dissimilarity drive fertility suppression.
822 +
823 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
824 + - White populations respond to diversity with lower family formation.
825 + - **Cultural distance** and loss of shared norms are possible causes.
826 +
827 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
828 + - High-diversity metro areas saw steepest declines in White birth rates over the past two decades.
829 + - Study challenges mainstream assumptions that diversity has neutral or positive demographic effects.
830 +{{/expandable}}
831 +
832 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
833 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
834 + - Offers **quantitative backing for claims long treated as taboo** in public discourse.
835 + - Applies **robust statistical methods** and cross-validates with multiple data sources.
836 +
837 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
838 + - Avoids discussing **racial preference, ethnic tension, or cultural conflict** explicitly.
839 + - Authors stop short of acknowledging **the demographic replacement implication** of sustained low White fertility.
840 +
841 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
842 + - Include **qualitative data on reasons for delayed or avoided parenthood** among Whites in diverse areas.
843 + - Examine **media messaging and policy environments** that could accelerate these trends.
844 +{{/expandable}}
845 +
846 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
847 +- Confirms a **central premise** of the White demographic decline thesis.
848 +- Demonstrates that **diversity is not neutral** but **functionally suppressive to White reproduction**.
849 +- Offers solid **empirical support against the utopian assumptions** of multiculturalism.
850 +{{/expandable}}
851 +
852 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
853 +1. Examine **fertility effects of diversity in European countries** experiencing immigration-driven change.
854 +2. Study **how school demographics and crime perception** affect reproductive decision-making.
855 +3. Explore **policy frameworks that support demographic stability for founding populations**.
856 +{{/expandable}}
857 +
858 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
859 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:12.Gurun_Solomon_Diversity_BirthRates.pdf]]
860 +{{/expandable}}
861 +{{/expandable}}
862 +
863 +{{expandable summary="
864 +
865 +
866 +Study: The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"}}
867 +**Source:** *Porn Studies*
868 +**Date of Publication:** *2015*
869 +**Author(s):** *Noah Tsika*
870 +**Title:** *"The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"*
871 +**DOI:** [10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389](https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389)
872 +**Subject Matter:** *Pornography Studies, Race and Sexuality, Cultural Critique*
873 +
874 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
875 +1. **General Observations:**
876 + - This is a **qualitative content analysis** of gonzo pornography, particularly interracial porn involving Black men and White women.
877 + - The author reviews **select films, not a dataset**, using them to extrapolate broad cultural claims about race and sexuality.
878 +
879 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
880 + - Claims that **interracial porn “others” and dehumanizes Black men**, yet selectively **frames Black male sexual aggression as liberatory**.
881 + - The author accuses White male consumers of **fetishizing Black men** as both threats and tools for their own “colonial guilt.”
882 +
883 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
884 + - No empirical evidence, just interpretive readings of scenes and film dialogue.
885 + - Repeatedly criticizes **White directors and actors** as complicit in perpetuating “White supremacy through porn.”
886 +{{/expandable}}
887 +
888 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
889 +1. **Primary Observations:**
890 + - Argues that **gonzo interracial porn functions as racial propaganda**, reinforcing White guilt while commodifying Black masculinity.
891 + - Portrays White women as willing participants in a fantasy of racial domination that allegedly “liberates” Black men.
892 +
893 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
894 + - White male viewers are pathologized as both sexually repressed and voyeuristically complicit in anti-Black racism.
895 + - Black male performers are framed as both victims of racial commodification and **agents of resistance through hypersexuality**.
896 +
897 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
898 + - Cites scenes where Black male actors degrade or dominate White women as **“transgressive acts” that destabilize White power**, rather than examples of racial hostility or objectification.
899 + - The narrative treats **racially charged sexual violence as deconstructive**, only when it reverses traditional racial dynamics.
900 +{{/expandable}}
901 +
902 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
903 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
904 + - Useful in showcasing how **critical race theory invades even the most apolitical domains** (porn consumption) and turns them into race war battlegrounds.
905 + - Offers insight into how **White heterosexuality is recoded as colonialism** in activist academia.
906 +
907 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
908 + - **No statistical basis**, relies entirely on biased interpretive analysis of fringe media.
909 + - Presumes **intent and audience motivation** without surveys, viewership data, or cross-cultural comparison.
910 + - Treats Black aggression as empowering and White sexuality as inherently oppressive — a double standard.
911 +
912 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
913 + - Include comparative data on how different racial groups are portrayed in pornography across genres.
914 + - Analyze how **minority-run porn studios frame interracial themes** — not just White-directed media.
915 + - Address how racial fetishization **harms all groups**, not just Black men.
916 +{{/expandable}}
917 +
918 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
919 +- Exemplifies how **racialized sexual narratives are reinterpreted to indict White identity**, even in consumer entertainment.
920 +- Shows how **DEI and CRT frameworks are applied to pornographic material** to pathologize White maleness while sanctifying non-White hypermasculinity.
921 +- Highlights the **academic bias that treats transgressive content as empowering when it serves anti-White narratives**.
922 +{{/expandable}}
923 +
924 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
925 +1. Study how **interracial porn narratives differ when produced by non-White vs. White directors**.
926 +2. Examine **how racial power is portrayed in same-sex vs. heterosexual interracial porn**.
927 +3. Investigate whether the **fetishization of Black masculinity fuels unrealistic expectations and destructive stereotypes** for both Black and White men.
928 +{{/expandable}}
929 +
930 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
931 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Dinest - The White Man's Burden Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity.pdf]]
932 +{{/expandable}}
933 +{{/expandable}}
934 +
935 +{{expandable summary="
936 +
937 +
938 +Study: Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"}}
939 +**Source:** *Social Science Research*
940 +**Date of Publication:** *2009*
941 +**Author(s):** *Cynthia Feliciano, Belinda Robnett, Golnaz Komaie*
942 +**Title:** *"Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"*
943 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004)
944 +**Subject Matter:** *Online Dating, Racial Preferences, CRT Framing of White Intimacy*
945 +
946 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
947 +1. **General Observations:**
948 + - Based on data from **Love@aol.com**, analyzing **over 6,000 profiles** from California.
949 + - The study investigated **racial preferences listed explicitly** in dating profiles.
950 +
951 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
952 + - **White women were least likely to express openness to interracial dating**, particularly with Black and Asian men.
953 + - **White men also showed exclusion**, but were more open than White women.
954 +
955 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
956 + - The authors labeled preference for one’s own race as **“racial exclusion”**.
957 + - Profiles by non-White users expressing same-race preferences were **not similarly problematized**.
958 +{{/expandable}}
959 +
960 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
961 +1. **Primary Observations:**
962 + - **White in-group preference was framed as discriminatory**, regardless of intent or context.
963 + - Dating preferences were interpreted as a **“reinforcement of racial hierarchies”**.
964 +
965 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
966 + - The study suggested **White women’s selectivity** stemmed from **cultural and structural advantages**, implying racial gatekeeping.
967 + - Did not critically examine **non-White preferences** for their own race.
968 +
969 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
970 + - Highlighted that **Latina and Asian women were more open to White men** than to men of their own ethnicity, which was not treated as exclusionary.
971 + - **No racial preference was criticized except when it protected White boundaries.**
972 +{{/expandable}}
973 +
974 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
975 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
976 + - Large dataset from real-world dating profiles.
977 + - Provides rare insight into **gendered patterns of racial preference**.
978 +
979 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
980 + - **Frames personal preference as political discrimination** when expressed by White users.
981 + - **Fails to control for cultural compatibility, attraction patterns, or religious values.**
982 + - **Double standard** in analysis — **non-White selectivity is ignored or justified.**
983 +
984 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
985 + - Should distinguish **racial animus from in-group preference**.
986 + - Include **psychological, aesthetic, and cultural compatibility data**.
987 + - Apply **equal critical lens to all racial groups**, not just Whites.
988 +{{/expandable}}
989 +
990 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
991 +- Reinforces how CRT-aligned research pathologizes **White in-group dating preferences**.
992 +- Supports the claim that **White intimacy boundaries are uniquely scrutinized** and politicized.
993 +- Demonstrates how even non-political behavior (e.g., dating) is racialized when it involves Whites.
994 +{{/expandable}}
995 +
996 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
997 +1. Study how **dating preferences vary by upbringing, media influence, and culture**, not just race.
998 +2. Analyze **racial preferences across all groups** with equal rigor and skepticism.
999 +3. Examine the **mental health impact of stigmatizing in-group preference** among Whites.
1000 +{{/expandable}}
1001 +
1002 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1003 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.ssresearch.2009.04.004.pdf]]
1004 +{{/expandable}}
1005 +{{/expandable}}
1006 +
1007 +{{expandable summary="
1008 +
1009 +
1010 +Study: Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World"}}
1011 +**Source:** *Journal of European Psychoanalysis*
1012 +**Date of Publication:** *2009*
1013 +**Author(s):** *Kristen Fink* *Jewish*))
1014 +**Title:** *"Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World: Sexual relationships between black men and white women as a cause of decline"*
1015 +**DOI:** *Unavailable – Psychoanalytic essay publication*
1016 +**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sexuality, Psychoanalysis, Cultural Demoralization*
1017 +
1018 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1019 +1. **General Observations:**
1020 + - This is a **psychoanalytic essay**, not an empirical study.
1021 + - Uses **Freudian and Lacanian theory** to explore symbolic meanings of interracial sex.
1022 + - Frames **Black male–White female pairings** as psychologically disruptive to the White male ego and Western civilization.
1023 +
1024 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1025 + - Positions **Black men as symbolic rivals** to emasculated Western (White) men.
1026 + - **White women’s interracial attraction** is framed as rebellion or rejection of Western order.
1027 +
1028 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1029 + - The essay proposes that **sexual representation in media** is demoralizing to White culture.
1030 + - Uses **high theory language** to justify what is ultimately an anti-White cultural narrative.
1031 +{{/expandable}}
1032 +
1033 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1034 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1035 + - **Interracial sexual dynamics** are framed as central to **Western decline**.
1036 + - **White masculinity is portrayed as passive, obsolete, or neurotic** in contrast to hypermasculinized Blackness.
1037 +
1038 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1039 + - Suggests White men internalize emasculation through exposure to interracial symbolism.
1040 + - Sees **cultural loss of confidence** in White society as stemming from racial-sexual symbolism.
1041 +
1042 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1043 + - Analyzes media tropes (e.g., interracial porn, pop culture) through the lens of psychoanalytic guilt and transgression.
1044 + - Never critiques the **ideological project of glorifying Blackness at the expense of White identity**.
1045 +{{/expandable}}
1046 +
1047 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1048 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1049 + - Reveals how **elite academic disciplines like psychoanalysis** are used to mask anti-White narratives in esoteric jargon.
1050 + - Serves as **ideological evidence** of demoralization tactics embedded in cultural theory.
1051 +
1052 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1053 + - No empirical data, surveys, or statistical analysis — purely speculative.
1054 + - **Does not critique hypersexualization of Black men** or the dehumanizing aspects of the fetish.
1055 + - Assumes **White masculinity must passively accept its symbolic erasure** as psychoanalytically “natural.”
1056 +
1057 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1058 + - Include **perspectives from White men and women** on how these portrayals affect their psychological well-being.
1059 + - Disentangle psychoanalytic theory from **racial guilt ideology**.
1060 + - Explore **mutual respect-based frameworks** for interracial dynamics rather than ones rooted in humiliation or power symbolism.
1061 +{{/expandable}}
1062 +
1063 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1064 +- Illustrates how **race, sex, and culture are manipulated to undermine White self-perception**.
1065 +- Demonstrates how **academic elites frame White decline as psychologically necessary or deserved**.
1066 +- Provides ideological background for modern media trends that eroticize racial power imbalance.
1067 +{{/expandable}}
1068 +
1069 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1070 +1. Analyze how psychoanalytic language is used to **justify racial inversion in cultural dominance**.
1071 +2. Examine the **role of pornography in demoralization campaigns** targeting White men.
1072 +3. Explore how elite journals create **ideological cover for overt anti-White sentiment**.
1073 +{{/expandable}}
1074 +
1075 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1076 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.Fink_Black_Penis_Demoralization.pdf]]
1077 +{{/expandable}}
1078 +{{/expandable}}
1079 +
1080 +{{expandable summary="
1081 +
1082 +
1083 +Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"}}
651 651  **Source:** *JAMA Network Open*
652 652  **Date of Publication:** *2020*
653 653  **Author(s):** *Ueda P, Mercer CH, Ghaznavi C, Herbenick D.*
... ... @@ -1122,7 +1122,149 @@
1122 1122  
1123 1123  = Whiteness & White Guilt =
1124 1124  
1125 -{{expandable summary="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}}
1558 +{{expandable summary="Study: Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"}}
1559 +**Source:** *Psychological Science*
1560 +**Date of Publication:** *2014*
1561 +**Author(s):** *Caleb E. Lai, Anthony G. Greenwald, et al.*
1562 +**Title:** *"Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"*
1563 +**DOI:** [10.1177/0956797614535812](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535812)
1564 +**Subject Matter:** *Implicit Bias, Racial Psychology, Psychological Conditioning*
1565 +
1566 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1567 +1. **General Observations:**
1568 + - Tested **17 different interventions** across **6,321 participants**, all measured via IAT (Implicit Association Test).
1569 + - Focused exclusively on reducing **pro-White, anti-Black preferences** — no reciprocal testing on anti-White bias.
1570 +
1571 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1572 + - Educational and exposure-based interventions (e.g., multiculturalism, egalitarian messaging) failed to reduce bias significantly.
1573 + - Most effective short-term results came from **trauma-based or emotionally coercive interventions**.
1574 +
1575 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1576 + - The **"Black hero" intervention**, where participants imagined being violently attacked by a White man and rescued by a Black man, was among the most effective.
1577 + - Effects of even the most extreme interventions **dissipated within 24–72 hours**, with no long-term behavioral change.
1578 +{{/expandable}}
1579 +
1580 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1581 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1582 + - The interventions that produced the most dramatic IAT changes used **emotionally graphic narratives** depicting Whites as violent aggressors and Blacks as saviors.
1583 + - Merely showing positive Black images or promoting egalitarian values had minimal effect on implicit associations.
1584 +
1585 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1586 + - In the **"Black hero" condition**, participants were asked to imagine being physically beaten by a White person and then rescued by a Black person — an intentionally vivid and disturbing scenario.
1587 + - The **"Black victim" intervention** relied on emotionally shocking imagery of anti-Black violence (e.g., lynching) to induce guilt and disrupt positive associations with Whiteness.
1588 +
1589 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1590 + - None of the scenarios reversed the framing (e.g., Black aggressor/White victim), confirming the ideological goal was **to degrade White identity**, not merely reduce bias.
1591 + - The study was **cited by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)** to justify DEI-aligned policy recommendations.
1592 +{{/expandable}}
1593 +
1594 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1595 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1596 + - Large sample size and systematic comparison across diverse intervention types.
1597 + - Clearly shows that **implicit preference is resilient** and not easily changed by education or exposure alone.
1598 +
1599 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1600 + - The most “effective” methods **relied on emotional manipulation, not persuasion or evidence**.
1601 + - Assumes **natural in-group preference is pathological** when expressed by White subjects but makes no effort to test other groups.
1602 + - **Zero attention to pro-Black or anti-White bias** — only White attitudes are pathologized.
1603 +
1604 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1605 + - Test the **psychological harm** and ethical implications of using graphic racial trauma to coerce attitude change.
1606 + - Include interventions that **strengthen ingroup empathy** without demonizing other groups.
1607 + - Disaggregate bias by **class, region, and individual experience**, rather than racially reducing all bias to “Whiteness.”
1608 +{{/expandable}}
1609 +
1610 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1611 +- Provides direct evidence that **DEI-style implicit bias training** is based on emotionally abusive and **anti-White psychological framing**.
1612 +- Shows how **social science selectively targets Whites for attitude correction**, often using fictionalized racial trauma scenarios.
1613 +- Demonstrates that even extreme interventions **fail to achieve long-term change**, undermining the scientific justification for such policies.
1614 +{{/expandable}}
1615 +
1616 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1617 +1. Investigate **implicit bias training outcomes** in real-world institutional settings.
1618 +2. Study **the ethical limits of psychological reprogramming** in DEI policies.
1619 +3. Explore **natural ingroup preference across all races** using morally neutral frameworks. 
1620 +{{/expandable}}
1621 +
1622 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1623 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:lai2014.pdf]]
1624 +{{/expandable}}
1625 +{{/expandable}}
1626 +
1627 +{{expandable summary="
1628 +
1629 +
1630 +Study: School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education"}}
1631 +**Source:** *Social Science Research Network (SSRN)*
1632 +**Date of Publication:** *2020*
1633 +**Author(s):** *Eric Kaufmann, David Goldberg*
1634 +**Title:** *"School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education"*
1635 +**DOI:** [10.2139/ssrn.3730517](https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3730517)
1636 +**Subject Matter:** *K–12 Education, CRT, Indoctrination, Teacher Training*
1637 +
1638 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1639 +1. **General Observations:**
1640 + - Surveyed **over 800 educators** and analyzed **curricula, training materials, and administrator communications**.
1641 + - Found that **CSJ ideology is deeply embedded in public school systems**, including charter and magnet schools.
1642 +
1643 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1644 + - Teachers reported being trained to believe **Whiteness = privilege + harm**, not just historical context.
1645 + - Administrators disproportionately **disciplined or suppressed dissenting White teachers or parents**.
1646 +
1647 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1648 + - **Majority of educators fear retribution** if they question CSJ orthodoxy.
1649 + - **Curriculum mandates racial self-critique** primarily for White students, often starting in elementary grades.
1650 +{{/expandable}}
1651 +
1652 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1653 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1654 + - CSJ ideology **functions as an implicit worldview**, not a neutral teaching tool.
1655 + - “Equity” in practice means **dismantling of perceived White dominance**, often through emotional manipulation of students.
1656 +
1657 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1658 + - White students and teachers report **feeling targeted or dehumanized** in diversity sessions.
1659 + - Minority students were often **placed in victim-centric identity frameworks**, reinforcing grievance politics.
1660 +
1661 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1662 + - In several documented districts, **student activities included “unlearning Whiteness” workshops**.
1663 + - One district mandated that teachers **“de-center White perspectives”** in all classroom subjects.
1664 +{{/expandable}}
1665 +
1666 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1667 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1668 + - One of the few empirical studies documenting **systemic ideological bias in education**.
1669 + - Strong evidentiary base drawn from **firsthand educator testimony** and training materials.
1670 +
1671 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1672 + - Study is based on **self-reported perceptions**, though many are substantiated with examples.
1673 + - Focus is primarily U.S.-centric; international parallels not explored.
1674 +
1675 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1676 + - Future studies could **quantify the academic and emotional impact** on White students.
1677 + - Comparative analysis with **non-CSJ schools** (e.g., classical models) would clarify causal impact.
1678 +{{/expandable}}
1679 +
1680 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1681 +- Documents how **CRT-aligned ideology disproportionately targets White students and teachers**.
1682 +- Confirms that **school choice fails to protect against ideological indoctrination** when CSJ is systemic.
1683 +- Supports the need for **explicitly anti-indoctrination educational frameworks** grounded in neutrality and merit.
1684 +{{/expandable}}
1685 +
1686 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1687 +1. Investigate **legal protections for students against compelled ideological speech**.
1688 +2. Study **alternatives to CSJ pedagogy**, such as classical liberal education or civic humanism.
1689 +3. Examine **psychological outcomes** of guilt-based racial framing among White children.
1690 +{{/expandable}}
1691 +
1692 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1693 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:11.Goldberg_Kaufmann_CSJ_Education_Impact.pdf]]
1694 +{{/expandable}}
1695 +{{/expandable}}
1696 +
1697 +{{expandable summary="
1698 +
1699 +
1700 +Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}}
1126 1126  **Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1127 1127  **Date of Publication:** *2019*
1128 1128  **Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
... ... @@ -1191,8 +1191,10 @@
1191 1191  {{/expandable}}
1192 1192  {{/expandable}}
1193 1193  
1769 +{{expandable summary="
1194 1194  
1195 -{{expandable summary="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
1771 +
1772 +Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
1196 1196  **Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1197 1197  **Date of Publication:** *2016*
1198 1198  **Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axt, M. Norman Oliver*
... ... @@ -1248,13 +1248,13 @@
1248 1248  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1249 1249  - Shows how **DEI-aligned narratives exploit limited findings** to vilify White professionals.
1250 1250  - Provides an example of a **legitimate medical education issue being repackaged as “racial bias.”**
1251 -- Highlights the **lack of reciprocal scrutiny** of how minorities may receive **preferential narrative framing** or **programmatic support**.
1828 +- Highlights the **lack of reciprocal scrutiny** of how minorities may receive **preferential narrative framing** or **programmatic support**. 
1252 1252  {{/expandable}}
1253 1253  
1254 1254  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1255 1255  1. Study whether **DEI training reduces false beliefs** or simply **induces White guilt**.
1256 1256  2. Investigate **biases against White rural patients**, especially regarding **opioid or pain management stigma**.
1257 -3. Conduct **clinical outcome studies**, not self-reported vignettes, to test **real-world disparities**.
1834 +3. Conduct **clinical outcome studies**, not self-reported vignettes, to test **real-world disparities**. 
1258 1258  {{/expandable}}
1259 1259  
1260 1260  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
... ... @@ -1262,8 +1262,10 @@
1262 1262  {{/expandable}}
1263 1263  {{/expandable}}
1264 1264  
1842 +{{expandable summary="
1265 1265  
1266 -{{expandable summary="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}}
1844 +
1845 +Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}}
1267 1267  **Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1268 1268  **Date of Publication:** *2015*
1269 1269  **Author(s):** *Anne Case, Angus Deaton*
... ... @@ -1391,7 +1391,7 @@
1391 1391  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1392 1392  1. Study the **psychological impact of demographic displacement** on native European populations.
1393 1393  2. Examine **rising crime and social fragmentation** in “superdiverse” zones.
1394 -3. Analyze how **housing, schooling, and local economies** are impacted by mass migration.
1973 +3. Analyze how **housing, schooling, and local economies** are impacted by mass migration. 
1395 1395  {{/expandable}}
1396 1396  
1397 1397  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
... ... @@ -1612,7 +1612,6 @@
1612 1612  Subject Matter: Advertising Trends, Racial Representation, Cultural Shifts
1613 1613  
1614 1614  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1615 -
1616 1616  **General Observations:**
1617 1617  
1618 1618  Meta-analysis of 74 studies conducted between 1955 and 2020 on racial representation in advertising.
... ... @@ -1633,7 +1633,6 @@
1633 1633  {{/expandable}}
1634 1634  
1635 1635  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1636 -
1637 1637  **Primary Observations:**
1638 1638  
1639 1639  White Americans have become increasingly receptive or favorable toward Black figures in advertising, even over timeframes of widespread cultural change.
... ... @@ -1654,7 +1654,6 @@
1654 1654  {{/expandable}}
1655 1655  
1656 1656  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1657 -
1658 1658  **Strengths of the Study:**
1659 1659  
1660 1660  Large-scale dataset across decades provides a clear empirical view of long-term trends.
... ... @@ -1679,7 +1679,6 @@
1679 1679  {{/expandable}}
1680 1680  
1681 1681  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1682 -
1683 1683  Demonstrates how White cultural imagery has been steadily replaced or downplayed in the public sphere.
1684 1684  
1685 1685  Useful for showing how marketing professionals and researchers frame White displacement as “progress.”
... ... @@ -1688,7 +1688,6 @@
1688 1688  {{/expandable}}
1689 1689  
1690 1690  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1691 -
1692 1692  Study how overrepresentation of minorities in advertising compares to actual demographics.
1693 1693  
1694 1694  Examine whether consumers feel represented or alienated by identity-based marketing.
... ... @@ -1700,3 +1700,140 @@
1700 1700  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.2501_JAR-2022-028.pdf]]
1701 1701  {{/expandable}}
1702 1702  {{/expandable}}
2277 +
2278 +{{expandable summary="Study: Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"}}
2279 +**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2280 +**Date of Publication:** *2020*
2281 +**Author(s):** *John A. Banas, Lauren L. Miller, David A. Braddock, Sun Kyong Lee*
2282 +**Title:** *"Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"*
2283 +**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqz032](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz032)
2284 +**Subject Matter:** *Media Psychology, Prejudice Reduction, Intergroup Relations*
2285 +
2286 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2287 +1. **General Observations:**
2288 + - Aggregated **71 studies involving 27,000+ participants**.
2289 + - Focused on how **media portrayals of out-groups (primarily minorities)** affect attitudes among dominant in-groups (i.e., Whites).
2290 +
2291 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
2292 + - **Fictional entertainment** had stronger effects than news.
2293 + - **Positive portrayals of minorities** correlated with significant reductions in “prejudice”.
2294 +
2295 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
2296 + - Effects were stronger when minority characters were portrayed as **warm, competent, and morally relatable**.
2297 + - Contact was more effective when it mimicked **face-to-face friendship narratives**.
2298 +{{/expandable}}
2299 +
2300 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2301 +1. **Primary Observations:**
2302 + - Media is a **powerful tool for shaping racial attitudes**, capable of reducing “prejudice” without real-world contact.
2303 + - **Repeated exposure** to positive portrayals of minorities led to increased acceptance and reduced negative bias.
2304 +
2305 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2306 + - **White participants** were the primary targets of reconditioning.
2307 + - Minority participants were not studied in terms of **prejudice against Whites**.
2308 +
2309 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2310 + - “Parasocial” relationships with minority characters (TV/movie exposure) had comparable psychological effects to actual friendships.
2311 + - Media framing functioned as a **top-down mechanism for social engineering**, not just passive reflection of society.
2312 +{{/expandable}}
2313 +
2314 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2315 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2316 + - High-quality quantitative meta-analysis with clear design and robust statistical handling.
2317 + - Acknowledges **media’s ability to alter long-held social beliefs** without physical contact.
2318 +
2319 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2320 + - Only defines “prejudice” as **negative attitudes from Whites toward minorities** — no exploration of anti-White media narratives or bias.
2321 + - Ignores the effects of **overexposure to minority portrayals** on cultural alienation or backlash.
2322 + - Assumes **assimilation into DEI norms is inherently positive**, and any reluctance to accept them is “prejudice”.
2323 +
2324 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2325 + - Study reciprocal dynamics — how **minority media portrayals impact attitudes toward Whites**.
2326 + - Investigate whether constant valorization of minorities leads to **resentment, guilt, or political disengagement** among White viewers.
2327 + - Analyze **media saturation effects**, especially in multicultural propaganda and corporate DEI messaging.
2328 +{{/expandable}}
2329 +
2330 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2331 +- Provides **direct evidence** that media is being used to **reshape racial attitudes** through emotional, parasocial contact.
2332 +- Reinforces concern that **“tolerance” is engineered via asymmetric emotional exposure**, not organic consensus.
2333 +- Useful for documenting how **Whiteness is often treated as a bias to be corrected**, not a culture to be respected.
2334 +{{/expandable}}
2335 +
2336 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2337 +1. Investigate **reverse parasocial effects** — how negative portrayals of White men affect self-perception and mental health.
2338 +2. Study how **mass entertainment normalizes demographic shifts** and silences native concerns.
2339 +3. Compare effects of **Western vs. non-Western media systems** in promoting diversity narratives. 
2340 +{{/expandable}}
2341 +
2342 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2343 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf]]
2344 +{{/expandable}}
2345 +{{/expandable}}
2346 +
2347 +{{expandable summary="
2348 +
2349 +
2350 +Study: Cultural Voyeurism – A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"}}
2351 +**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2352 +**Date of Publication:** *2018*
2353 +**Author(s):** *Osei Appiah*
2354 +**Title:** *"Cultural Voyeurism: A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"*
2355 +**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
2356 +**Subject Matter:** *Intergroup contact, racial stereotypes, media, identity formation*
2357 +
2358 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2359 +1. **No empirical dataset** — this is a theoretical framework paper, not a quantitative study.
2360 +2. **Heavily cites prior empirical work**, including:
2361 + - Czopp & Monteith (2006) on “complimentary stereotypes”
2362 + - Armstrong et al. (1992), Entman & Rojecki (2000) on media distortion of race
2363 + - Pettigrew et al. (2011) on intergroup contact
2364 +
2365 +3. **Statistical implications:** Repeatedly emphasizes the role of media in shaping racial beliefs when direct interracial contact is absent.
2366 +{{/expandable}}
2367 +
2368 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2369 +1. **Primary Observations:**
2370 + - Defines *cultural voyeurism* as the process of using media to observe and learn about other racial/ethnic groups.
2371 + - Claims it can both reinforce stereotypes and reduce prejudice depending on context.
2372 + - Suggests that Whites’ fascination with Black culture (e.g., hip-hop, athleticism) is a driver of empathy and improved race relations.
2373 +
2374 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2375 + - White youth are singled out as cultural voyeurs increasingly emulating Black identity for social cachet (“coolness”).
2376 + - Positive media portrayals of Blacks (e.g., in entertainment) said to reduce racial bias.
2377 +
2378 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2379 + - No case study provided, but mentions “Duck Dynasty” and “hip-hop culture” as stereotyped White/Black identity constructs respectively.
2380 +{{/expandable}}
2381 +
2382 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2383 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2384 + - Recognizes media’s dual role in shaping intergroup perception.
2385 + - Accurately captures the obsession with racial “coolness” as a social phenomenon.
2386 +
2387 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2388 + - Frames White identification with Black culture as inherently progressive, ignoring issues of **anti-White displacement**.
2389 + - Treats *positive stereotypes of minorities* (e.g., athleticism, musicality) as meaningful substitutes for structural reality.
2390 + - Lacks any meaningful inquiry into *reverse cultural voyeurism* (i.e., non-Whites voyeuristically consuming and appropriating White identity or values).
2391 +
2392 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2393 + - Should confront whether “cultural voyeurism” ultimately erodes group boundaries and majority cultural integrity.
2394 + - Needs empirical validation of claims.
2395 + - Avoids uncomfortable realities about how White identity is increasingly stigmatized in media — which undermines genuine empathy or parity.
2396 +{{/expandable}}
2397 +
2398 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2399 +- Helps explain how **media conditioning** primes young Whites to *admire, emulate, and eventually submit* to Black cultural dominance.
2400 +- Directly supports the narrative that **pro-White identity is systematically delegitimized**, while pro-Black identity is commodified and glamorized — then sold back to White youth.
2401 +- Useful in chapters/sections covering cultural appropriation *in reverse* — not by Whites, but **of Whiteness** by outsiders for critique and exploitation.
2402 +{{/expandable}}
2403 +
2404 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2405 +1. Are there longitudinal studies showing cultural voyeurism weakening in-group preference among Whites?
2406 +2. Does this phenomenon correspond to decreased fertility, civic participation, or political alignment with group interest?
2407 +3. How do non-Western societies handle voyeuristic consumption of majority culture — do they permit or punish it?
2408 +{{/expandable}}
2409 +
2410 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2411 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Cultural Voyeurism A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Intera.pdf]]
2412 +{{/expandable}}
2413 +{{/expandable}}
10.1891_1946.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -523.1 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