0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

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

From version 115.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 05:42
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 104.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/04/16 02:44
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Parent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -Main Categories.Science & Research.WebHome
1 +Main.Studies.WebHome
Content
... ... @@ -1,11 +4,8 @@
1 -{{toc/}}
2 -
3 -
4 4  = Research at a Glance =
5 5  
6 6  
7 7  
8 - Welcome to the **Research at a Glance** repository. This section serves as a **centralized reference hub** for key academic studies related to various important Racial themes. Each study is categorized for easy navigation and presented in a **collapsible format** to maintain a clean layout. I wanted to make this for a couple of reasons. Number one is organization. There are a ton of useful studies out there that expose the truth, sometimes inadvertently. You'll notice that in this initial draft the summaries are often woke and reflect the bias of the AI writing them as well as the researchers politically correct conclusion in most cases. That's because I haven't gotten to going through and pointing out the reasons I put all of them in here.
5 + Welcome to the **Research at a Glance** repository. This section serves as a **centralized reference hub** for key academic studies related to various important Racial themes. Each study is categorized for easy navigation and presented in a **collapsible format** to maintain a clean layout. I wanted to make this for a couple of reasons. Number one is organization. There are a ton of useful studies out there that expose the truth, sometimes inadvertently. You'll notice that in this initial draft the summaries are often woke and reflect the bias of the AI writing them as well as the researchers politically correct conclusion in most cases. That's because I haven't gotten to going through and pointing out the reasons I put all of them in here.
9 9  
10 10  
11 11   There is often an underlying hypocrisy or double standard, saying the quiet part out loud, or conclusions that are so much of an antithesis to what the data shows that made me want to include it. At least, thats the idea for once its polished. I have about 150 more studies to upload, so it will be a few weeks before I get through it all. Until such time, feel free to search for them yourself and edit in what you find, or add your own studies. If you like you can do it manually, or if you'd rather go the route I did, just rename the study to its doi number and feed the study into an AI and tell them to summarize the study using the following format:
... ... @@ -19,12 +19,16 @@
19 19  - You'll also find a download link to the original full study in pdf form at the bottom of the collapsible block.
20 20  
21 21  
19 +{{toc/}}
22 22  
21 +
22 +
23 +
24 +
23 23  = Genetics =
24 24  
25 -{{expandable summary="
26 26  
27 -Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History"}}
28 +{{expandable summary="Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History"}}
28 28  **Source:** *Nature*
29 29  **Date of Publication:** *2009*
30 30  **Author(s):** *David Reich, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Alkes L. Price, Lalji Singh*
... ... @@ -158,8 +158,9 @@
158 158  {{/expandable}}
159 159  {{/expandable}}
160 160  
161 -{{expandable summary="
162 +{{expandable summary="
162 162  
164 +
163 163  Study: Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"}}
164 164  **Source:** *Nature Genetics*
165 165  **Date of Publication:** *2015*
... ... @@ -227,8 +227,9 @@
227 227  {{/expandable}}
228 228  {{/expandable}}
229 229  
230 -{{expandable summary="
232 +{{expandable summary="
231 231  
234 +
232 232  Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease"}}
233 233  **Source:** *Nature Reviews Genetics*
234 234  **Date of Publication:** *2002*
... ... @@ -296,8 +296,9 @@
296 296  {{/expandable}}
297 297  {{/expandable}}
298 298  
299 -{{expandable summary="
302 +{{expandable summary="
300 300  
304 +
301 301  Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA"}}
302 302  **Source:** *bioRxiv Preprint*
303 303  **Date of Publication:** *September 15, 2024*
... ... @@ -708,7 +708,6 @@
708 708  {{/expandable}}
709 709  
710 710  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
711 -
712 712  {{/expandable}}
713 713  {{/expandable}}
714 714  
... ... @@ -1051,9 +1051,8 @@
1051 1051  {{/expandable}}
1052 1052  {{/expandable}}
1053 1053  
1054 -{{expandable summary="
1055 1055  
1056 -Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"}}
1058 +{{expandable summary="Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"}}
1057 1057  **Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
1058 1058  **Date of Publication:** *2014*
1059 1059  **Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley, Jan te Nijenhuis, Raegan Murphy*
... ... @@ -1122,138 +1122,66 @@
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 -
1195 1195  {{expandable summary="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}}
1196 -**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1197 -**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1198 -**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1199 -**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1200 -**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1201 -**Subject Matter:** *Critical Race Theory, Sports Sociology, Anti-White Institutional Framing*
1128 +**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1129 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1130 +**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1131 +**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1132 +**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1133 +**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sports, Higher Education, Institutional Racism*
1202 1202  
1203 1203  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1204 1204  1. **General Observations:**
1205 - - Based on **47 athlete interviews**, cherry-picked from non-revenue Division I sports.
1206 - - The study claims **segregation”**, but presents no evidence of actual exclusion or policy bias — just demographic imbalance.
1137 + - Analyzed **47 college athlete narratives** to explore racial disparities in non-revenue sports.
1138 + - Found three interrelated themes: **racial segregation, racial innocence, and racial protection**.
1207 1207  
1208 1208  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1209 - - Attributes **White participation** in certain sports to "systemic racism", ignoring **self-selection, geography, and cultural affinity**.
1210 - - Claims White athletes are “protected” from race discussions — but never engages with **Black overrepresentation in revenue sports**.
1141 + - **Predominantly white sports programs** reinforce racial hierarchies in college athletics.
1142 + - **Recruitment policies favor white athletes** from affluent, suburban backgrounds.
1211 1211  
1212 1212  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1213 - - White athletes are portrayed as **ignorant of their privilege**, a claim drawn entirely from CRT frameworks rather than behavior or outcome.
1214 - - **No empirical data** is offered on policy, scholarship distribution, or team selection criteria.
1145 + - White athletes are **socialized to remain unaware of racial privilege** in their athletic careers.
1146 + - Media and institutional narratives protect white athletes from discussions on race and systemic inequities.
1215 1215  {{/expandable}}
1216 1216  
1217 1217  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1218 1218  1. **Primary Observations:**
1219 - - Frames **normal demographic patterns** (e.g., majority-White rosters in tennis or rowing) as "institutional whiteness".
1220 - - **Ignores the structural dominance** of Black athletes in high-profile revenue sports like football and basketball.
1151 + - Colleges **actively recruit white athletes** from majority-white communities.
1152 + - Institutional policies **uphold whiteness** by failing to challenge racial biases in recruitment and team culture.
1221 1221  
1222 1222  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1223 - - White athletes are criticized for **lacking racial awareness**, reinforcing the moral framing of **Whiteness as inherently problematic**.
1224 - - **Cultural preference, individual merit, and athletic subculture** are all excluded from consideration.
1155 + - **White athletes show limited awareness** of their racial advantage in sports.
1156 + - **Black athletes are overrepresented** in revenue-generating sports but underrepresented in non-revenue teams.
1225 1225  
1226 1226  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1227 - - Argues that college sports **reinforce racial hierarchy** without ever showing how White athletes benefit more than Black athletes.
1228 - - Offers **no comparative analysis** of scholarships, graduation rates, or media portrayal by race.
1159 + - Examines **how sports serve as a mechanism for maintaining racial privilege** in higher education.
1160 + - Discusses the **role of athletics in reinforcing systemic segregation and exclusion**.
1229 1229  {{/expandable}}
1230 1230  
1231 1231  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1232 1232  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1233 - - Useful as a clear example of **how CRT ideologues weaponize demography** to frame White majority spaces as inherently suspect.
1234 - - Shows how **academic literature systematically avoids symmetrical analysis** when outcomes favor White participants.
1165 + - **Comprehensive qualitative analysis** of race in college sports.
1166 + - Examines **institutional conditions** that sustain racial disparities in athletics.
1235 1235  
1236 1236  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1237 - - **Excludes revenue sports**, where Black athletes dominate by numbers, prestige, and compensation.
1238 - - **Fails to explain** how team composition emerges from voluntary participation, geography, or subcultural identity.
1239 - - Treats **racial imbalance as proof of racism**, bypassing merit, interest, or socioeconomic context.
1169 + - Focuses primarily on **Division I non-revenue sports**, limiting generalizability to other divisions.
1170 + - Lacks extensive **quantitative data on racial demographics** in college athletics.
1240 1240  
1241 1241  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1242 - - Include **White athlete perspectives** without pre-framing them as racially naive or complicit.
1243 - - **Compare all sports**, including those where Black athletes thrive and lead.
1244 - - Remove CRT framing and **evaluate outcomes empirically**, not ideologically.
1173 + - Future research should **compare recruitment policies across different sports and divisions**.
1174 + - Investigate **how athletic scholarships contribute to racial inequities in higher education**.
1245 1245  {{/expandable}}
1246 1246  
1247 1247  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1248 -- Demonstrates how **DEI-aligned research reframes benign patterns** as oppressive when White majorities are involved.
1249 -- Illustrates **anti-White academic framing** in environments where no institutional barrier exists.
1250 -- Provides a concrete example of how **CRT avoids acknowledging Black dominance in elite spaces** (revenue athletics).
1178 +- Provides evidence of **systemic racial biases** in college sports recruitment.
1179 +- Highlights **how institutional policies protect whiteness** in non-revenue athletics.
1180 +- Supports research on **diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in sports and education**.
1251 1251  {{/expandable}}
1252 1252  
1253 1253  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1254 -1. Investigate **racial self-sorting and cultural affiliation** in athletic participation.
1255 -2. Compare **media framing of White-majority vs. Black-majority sports**.
1256 -3. Study **how CRT narratives distort athletic merit and demographic outcomes**.
1184 +1. Investigate how **racial stereotypes influence college athlete recruitment**.
1185 +2. Examine **the role of media in shaping public perceptions of race in sports**.
1186 +3. Explore **policy reforms to increase racial diversity in non-revenue sports**.
1257 1257  {{/expandable}}
1258 1258  
1259 1259  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
... ... @@ -1261,70 +1261,66 @@
1261 1261  {{/expandable}}
1262 1262  {{/expandable}}
1263 1263  
1264 -
1265 1265  {{expandable summary="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
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*
1195 +**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1196 +**Date of Publication:** *2016*
1197 +**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axta, M. Norman Oliver*
1269 1269  **Title:** *"Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs About Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites"*
1270 -**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1271 -**Subject Matter:** *Medical Ethics, Race in Medicine, Implicit Bias*
1199 +**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1200 +**Subject Matter:** *Health Disparities, Racial Bias, Medical Treatment*
1272 1272  
1273 1273  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1274 1274  1. **General Observations:**
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**.
1204 + - Study analyzed **racial disparities in pain perception and treatment recommendations**.
1205 + - Found that **white laypeople and medical students endorsed false beliefs about biological differences** between Black and white individuals.
1278 1278  
1279 1279  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
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**.
1208 + - **50% of medical students surveyed endorsed at least one false belief about biological differences**.
1209 + - Participants who held these false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients pain levels**.
1282 1282  
1283 1283  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1284 - - Bias was **most prominent among first-year students**, diminishing slightly with experience.
1285 - - Study used **hypothetical case vignettes**, not real patient data.
1212 + - **Black patients were less likely to receive appropriate pain treatment** compared to white patients.
1213 + - The study confirmed that **historical misconceptions about racial differences still persist in modern medicine**.
1286 1286  {{/expandable}}
1287 1287  
1288 1288  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1289 1289  1. **Primary Observations:**
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.
1218 + - False beliefs about biological racial differences **correlate with racial disparities in pain treatment**.
1219 + - Medical students and residents who endorsed these beliefs **showed greater racial bias in treatment recommendations**.
1292 1292  
1293 1293  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
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**.
1222 + - Physicians who **did not endorse these beliefs** showed **no racial bias** in treatment recommendations.
1223 + - Bias was **strongest among first-year medical students** and decreased slightly in later years of training.
1296 1296  
1297 1297  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
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.
1226 + - Study participants **underestimated Black patients' pain and recommended less effective pain treatments**.
1227 + - The study suggests that **racial disparities in medical care stem, in part, from these enduring false beliefs**.
1300 1300  {{/expandable}}
1301 1301  
1302 1302  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1303 1303  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1304 - - Provides valuable insight into **how medical myths can affect judgment**.
1305 - - Demonstrates the importance of **clinical education and evidence-based practice**.
1232 + - **First empirical study to connect false racial beliefs with medical decision-making**.
1233 + - Utilizes a **large sample of medical students and residents** from diverse institutions.
1306 1306  
1307 1307  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
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**.
1236 + - The study focuses on **Black vs. white disparities**, leaving other racial/ethnic groups unexplored.
1237 + - Participants' responses were based on **hypothetical medical cases, not real-world treatment decisions**.
1311 1311  
1312 1312  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
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.
1240 + - Future research should examine **how these biases manifest in real clinical settings**.
1241 + - Investigate **whether medical training can correct these biases over time**.
1316 1316  {{/expandable}}
1317 1317  
1318 1318  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
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**.
1245 +- Highlights **racial disparities in healthcare**, specifically in pain assessment and treatment.
1246 +- Supports **research on implicit bias and its impact on medical outcomes**.
1247 +- Provides evidence for **the need to address racial bias in medical education**.
1322 1322  {{/expandable}}
1323 1323  
1324 1324  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
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**.
1251 +1. Investigate **interventions to reduce racial bias in medical decision-making**.
1252 +2. Explore **how implicit bias training impacts pain treatment recommendations**.
1253 +3. Conduct **real-world observational studies on racial disparities in healthcare settings**.
1328 1328  {{/expandable}}
1329 1329  
1330 1330  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
... ... @@ -1332,7 +1332,6 @@
1332 1332  {{/expandable}}
1333 1333  {{/expandable}}
1334 1334  
1335 -
1336 1336  {{expandable summary="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}}
1337 1337  **Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1338 1338  **Date of Publication:** *2015*
... ... @@ -1401,75 +1401,71 @@
1401 1401  {{/expandable}}
1402 1402  
1403 1403  {{expandable summary="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"}}
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*
1329 +**Source:** *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies*
1330 +**Date of Publication:** *2023*
1331 +**Author(s):** *Maurice Crul, Frans Lelie, Elif Keskiner, Laure Michon, Ismintha Waldring*
1332 +**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1333 +**DOI:** [10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548](https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548)
1334 +**Subject Matter:** *Urban Sociology, Migration Studies, Integration*
1410 1410  
1411 1411  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1412 1412  1. **General Observations:**
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”.
1338 + - Study examines the role of **people without migration background** in majority-minority cities.
1339 + - Analyzes **over 3,000 survey responses and 150 in-depth interviews** from six North-Western European cities.
1415 1415  
1416 1416  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1417 - - Interviewees were **overwhelmingly framed as obstacles** to multicultural harmony.
1418 - - Researchers **pathologized attachment to local culture or ethnic identity** as “resistance to change.
1342 + - Explores differences in **integration, social interactions, and perceptions of diversity**.
1343 + - Studies how **class, education, and neighborhood composition** affect adaptation to urban diversity.
1419 1419  
1420 1420  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
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.
1346 + - The study introduces the **Becoming a Minority (BaM) project**, a large-scale investigation of urban demographic shifts.
1347 + - **People without migration background perceive diversity differently**, with some embracing and others resisting change.
1423 1423  {{/expandable}}
1424 1424  
1425 1425  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1426 1426  1. **Primary Observations:**
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.
1352 + - The study **challenges traditional integration theories**, arguing that non-migrant groups also undergo adaptation processes.
1353 + - Some residents **struggle with demographic changes**, while others see diversity as an asset.
1429 1429  
1430 1430  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1431 - - Critiques White residents for seeking **cultural familiarity or demographic continuity.**
1432 - - Presents **White neighborhood cohesion** as a form of invisible boundary-making.
1356 + - Young, educated individuals in urban areas **are more open to cultural diversity**.
1357 + - Older and less mobile residents **report feelings of displacement and social isolation**.
1433 1433  
1434 1434  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1435 - - Interviews frame **normal concerns about safety, schooling, or housing** as coded “racism.
1436 - - Treats **multicultural disruption** as inherently positive, and **resistance as bigotry.**
1360 + - Examines how **people without migration background navigate majority-minority settings** in cities like Amsterdam and Vienna.
1361 + - Analyzes **whether former ethnic majority groups now perceive themselves as minorities**.
1437 1437  {{/expandable}}
1438 1438  
1439 1439  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1440 1440  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1441 - - Reveals how **social scientists increasingly treat Whiteness itself as a problem.**
1442 - - Offers an **unintentional case study in academic anti-White framing.**
1366 + - **Innovative approach** by examining the impact of migration on native populations.
1367 + - Uses **both qualitative and quantitative data** for robust analysis.
1443 1443  
1444 1444  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
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.
1370 + - Limited to **Western European urban settings**, missing perspectives from other global regions.
1371 + - Does not fully explore **policy interventions for fostering social cohesion**.
1448 1448  
1449 1449  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
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.**
1374 + - Expand research to **other geographical contexts** to understand migration effects globally.
1375 + - Investigate **long-term trends in urban adaptation and community building**.
1453 1453  {{/expandable}}
1454 1454  
1455 1455  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
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.**
1379 +- Provides a **new perspective on urban integration**, shifting focus from migrants to native-born populations.
1380 +- Highlights the **role of social and economic power in shaping urban diversity outcomes**.
1381 +- Challenges existing **assimilation theories by showing bidirectional adaptation in diverse cities**.
1459 1459  {{/expandable}}
1460 1460  
1461 1461  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
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.
1385 +1. Study how **local policies shape attitudes toward urban diversity**.
1386 +2. Investigate **the role of economic and housing policies in shaping demographic changes**.
1387 +3. Explore **how social networks influence perceptions of migration and diversity**.
1465 1465  {{/expandable}}
1466 1466  
1467 1467  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1468 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_00420980231170057.pdf]]
1391 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]
1469 1469  {{/expandable}}
1470 -{{/expandable}}
1471 1471  
1472 -
1473 1473  = Media =
1474 1474  
1475 1475  {{expandable summary="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic"}}
... ... @@ -1672,171 +1672,3 @@
1672 1672  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]
1673 1673  {{/expandable}}
1674 1674  {{/expandable}}
1675 -
1676 -{{expandable summary="Study: White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years"}}
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
1680 -Title: "White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years: A Meta-Analysis"
1681 -DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2022-028
1682 -Subject Matter: Advertising Trends, Racial Representation, Cultural Shifts
1683 -
1684 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1685 -
1686 -**General Observations:**
1687 -
1688 -Meta-analysis of 74 studies conducted between 1955 and 2020 on racial representation in advertising.
1689 -
1690 -Sample included mostly White U.S. participants, with consistent tracking of their preferences.
1691 -
1692 -**Subgroup Analysis:**
1693 -
1694 -Found a steady increase in positive responses toward Black models/actors in ads by White viewers.
1695 -
1696 -Recent decades show equal or greater preference for Black faces compared to White ones.
1697 -
1698 -**Other Significant Data Points:**
1699 -
1700 -Study frames this shift as a positive move toward diversity, ignoring implications for displaced White cultural representation.
1701 -
1702 -No equivalent data was collected on Black or Hispanic attitudes toward White representation.
1703 -{{/expandable}}
1704 -
1705 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1706 -
1707 -**Primary Observations:**
1708 -
1709 -White Americans have become increasingly receptive or favorable toward Black figures in advertising, even over timeframes of widespread cultural change.
1710 -
1711 -These preferences held across product types, media formats, and ad genres.
1712 -
1713 -**Subgroup Trends:**
1714 -
1715 -Studies from the 1960s–1980s showed preference for in-group racial representation, which has dropped sharply for Whites in recent decades.
1716 -
1717 -The largest positive attitudinal shift occurred between 1995–2020, coinciding with major DEI and cultural programming trends.
1718 -
1719 -**Specific Case Analysis:**
1720 -
1721 -The authors position this as “progress,” but offer no critical reflection on the effects of displacing White imagery from national advertising narratives.
1722 -
1723 -Completely omits consumer preference studies in countries outside the U.S., especially in more homogeneous nations.
1724 -{{/expandable}}
1725 -
1726 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1727 -
1728 -**Strengths of the Study:**
1729 -
1730 -Large-scale dataset across decades provides a clear empirical view of long-term trends.
1731 -
1732 -Useful as a benchmark of how White American preferences have evolved under sociocultural pressure.
1733 -
1734 -**Limitations of the Study:**
1735 -
1736 -Fails to ask whether increasing diversity is consumer-driven or culturally imposed.
1737 -
1738 -Ignores the potential alienation or displacement of White cultural identity from mainstream advertising.
1739 -
1740 -Assumes “diverse equals better” without testing economic or emotional impact of those shifts.
1741 -
1742 -**Suggestions for Improvement:**
1743 -
1744 -Include non-White viewer reactions to all-White or traditional American imagery for balance.
1745 -
1746 -Test whether consumers notice racial proportions or experience fatigue from overcorrection.
1747 -
1748 -Explore regional or class-based variance among White viewers, not just aggregate averages.
1749 -{{/expandable}}
1750 -
1751 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1752 -
1753 -Demonstrates how White cultural imagery has been steadily replaced or downplayed in the public sphere.
1754 -
1755 -Useful for showing how marketing professionals and researchers frame White displacement as “progress.”
1756 -
1757 -Empirically supports the decline of White in-group preference — possibly due to reeducation, guilt framing, or media saturation.
1758 -{{/expandable}}
1759 -
1760 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1761 -
1762 -Study how overrepresentation of minorities in advertising compares to actual demographics.
1763 -
1764 -Examine whether consumers feel represented or alienated by identity-based marketing.
1765 -
1766 -Investigate the psychological and cultural impact of long-term demographic displacement in national advertising.
1767 -{{/expandable}}
1768 -
1769 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1770 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.2501_JAR-2022-028.pdf]]
1771 -{{/expandable}}
1772 -{{/expandable}}
1773 -
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 -
1838 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1839 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf]]
1840 -{{/expandable}}
1841 -{{/expandable}}
1842 -
lenk-et-al-white-americans-preference-for-black-people-in-advertising-has-increased-in-the-past-66-years-a-meta-analysis.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2.1 MB
Content