0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

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

From version 116.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 05:43
Change comment: Uploaded new attachment "lai2014.pdf", version 1.1
To version 107.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/04 07:06
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -22,8 +22,9 @@
22 22  
23 23  = Genetics =
24 24  
25 -{{expandable summary="
25 +{{expandable summary="
26 26  
27 +
27 27  Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History"}}
28 28  **Source:** *Nature*
29 29  **Date of Publication:** *2009*
... ... @@ -1051,8 +1051,9 @@
1051 1051  {{/expandable}}
1052 1052  {{/expandable}}
1053 1053  
1054 -{{expandable summary="
1055 +{{expandable summary="
1055 1055  
1057 +
1056 1056  Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"}}
1057 1057  **Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
1058 1058  **Date of Publication:** *2014*
... ... @@ -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 +1672,4 @@
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 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 -
lai2014.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -15.4 MB
Content
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