0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

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

From version 119.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 05:50
Change comment: Uploaded new attachment "Cultural Voyeurism A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Intera.pdf", version 1.2
To version 111.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 03:15
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -1122,76 +1122,6 @@
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 1196  **Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1197 1197  **Date of Publication:** *2019*
... ... @@ -1263,68 +1263,65 @@
1263 1263  
1264 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*
1196 +**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1197 +**Date of Publication:** *2016*
1198 +**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axta, M. Norman Oliver*
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*
1200 +**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1201 +**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**.
1205 + - Study analyzed **racial disparities in pain perception and treatment recommendations**.
1206 + - Found that **white laypeople and medical students endorsed false beliefs about biological differences** between Black and white individuals.
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**.
1209 + - **50% of medical students surveyed endorsed at least one false belief about biological differences**.
1210 + - Participants who held these false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients pain levels**.
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.
1213 + - **Black patients were less likely to receive appropriate pain treatment** compared to white patients.
1214 + - The study confirmed that **historical misconceptions about racial differences still persist in modern medicine**.
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.
1219 + - False beliefs about biological racial differences **correlate with racial disparities in pain treatment**.
1220 + - Medical students and residents who endorsed these beliefs **showed greater racial bias in treatment recommendations**.
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**.
1223 + - Physicians who **did not endorse these beliefs** showed **no racial bias** in treatment recommendations.
1224 + - Bias was **strongest among first-year medical students** and decreased slightly in later years of training.
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.
1227 + - Study participants **underestimated Black patients' pain and recommended less effective pain treatments**.
1228 + - The study suggests that **racial disparities in medical care stem, in part, from these enduring false beliefs**.
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**.
1233 + - **First empirical study to connect false racial beliefs with medical decision-making**.
1234 + - Utilizes a **large sample of medical students and residents** from diverse institutions.
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**.
1237 + - The study focuses on **Black vs. white disparities**, leaving other racial/ethnic groups unexplored.
1238 + - Participants' responses were based on **hypothetical medical cases, not real-world treatment decisions**.
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.
1241 + - Future research should examine **how these biases manifest in real clinical settings**.
1242 + - 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**.
1246 +- Highlights **racial disparities in healthcare**, specifically in pain assessment and treatment.
1247 +- Supports **research on implicit bias and its impact on medical outcomes**.
1248 +- Provides evidence for **the need to address racial bias in medical education**.
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**.
1252 +1. Investigate **interventions to reduce racial bias in medical decision-making**.
1253 +2. Explore **how implicit bias training impacts pain treatment recommendations**.
1254 +3. Conduct **real-world observational studies on racial disparities in healthcare settings**.
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 +1401,72 @@
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*
1330 +**Source:** *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies*
1331 +**Date of Publication:** *2023*
1332 +**Author(s):** *Maurice Crul, Frans Lelie, Elif Keskiner, Laure Michon, Ismintha Waldring*
1333 +**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1334 +**DOI:** [10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548](https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548)
1335 +**Subject Matter:** *Urban Sociology, Migration Studies, Integration*
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”.
1339 + - Study examines the role of **people without migration background** in majority-minority cities.
1340 + - Analyzes **over 3,000 survey responses and 150 in-depth interviews** from six North-Western European cities.
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.
1343 + - Explores differences in **integration, social interactions, and perceptions of diversity**.
1344 + - 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.
1347 + - The study introduces the **Becoming a Minority (BaM) project**, a large-scale investigation of urban demographic shifts.
1348 + - **People without migration background perceive diversity differently**, with some embracing and others resisting change.
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.
1353 + - The study **challenges traditional integration theories**, arguing that non-migrant groups also undergo adaptation processes.
1354 + - Some residents **struggle with demographic changes**, while others see diversity as an asset.
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.
1357 + - Young, educated individuals in urban areas **are more open to cultural diversity**.
1358 + - Older and less mobile residents **report feelings of displacement and social isolation**.
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.**
1361 + - Examines how **people without migration background navigate majority-minority settings** in cities like Amsterdam and Vienna.
1362 + - Analyzes **whether former ethnic majority groups now perceive themselves as minorities**.
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.**
1367 + - **Innovative approach** by examining the impact of migration on native populations.
1368 + - 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.
1371 + - Limited to **Western European urban settings**, missing perspectives from other global regions.
1372 + - 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.**
1375 + - Expand research to **other geographical contexts** to understand migration effects globally.
1376 + - 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.**
1380 +- Provides a **new perspective on urban integration**, shifting focus from migrants to native-born populations.
1381 +- Highlights the **role of social and economic power in shaping urban diversity outcomes**.
1382 +- Challenges existing **assimilation theories by showing bidirectional adaptation in diverse cities**.
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.
1386 +1. Study how **local policies shape attitudes toward urban diversity**.
1387 +2. Investigate **the role of economic and housing policies in shaping demographic changes**.
1388 +3. Explore **how social networks influence perceptions of migration and diversity**.
1465 1465  {{/expandable}}
1466 1466  
1467 1467  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1468 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_00420980231170057.pdf]]
1392 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]
1469 1469  {{/expandable}}
1470 1470  {{/expandable}}
1471 1471  
1472 -
1473 1473  = Media =
1474 1474  
1475 1475  {{expandable summary="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic"}}
... ... @@ -1674,235 +1674,107 @@
1674 1674  {{/expandable}}
1675 1675  
1676 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
1600 +Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
1601 +Date of Publication: February 20, 2024
1602 +Author(s): Julia Diana Lenk, Jochen Hartmann, Henrik Sattler
1680 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
1604 +DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2307505121
1605 +Subject Matter: Advertising, Race, Consumer Behavior, Meta-Analysis
1683 1683  
1684 1684  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1685 1685  
1686 -**General Observations:**
1609 +Study Scale:
1687 1687  
1688 -Meta-analysis of 74 studies conducted between 1955 and 2020 on racial representation in advertising.
1611 +62 studies, 332 effect sizes, 10,186 participants (Black and White Americans).
1689 1689  
1690 -Sample included mostly White U.S. participants, with consistent tracking of their preferences.
1613 +Covers the period 1956–2022.
1691 1691  
1692 -**Subgroup Analysis:**
1615 +Cohens d Effect Sizes (Model-Free):
1693 1693  
1694 -Found a steady increase in positive responses toward Black models/actors in ads by White viewers.
1617 +Black viewers: d = 0.50 → strong, consistent ingroup preference for Black models.
1695 1695  
1696 -Recent decades show equal or greater preference for Black faces compared to White ones.
1619 +White viewers: d = –0.08 overall; pre-2000: d = –0.16 (ingroup); post-2000: d = +0.02 (outgroup leaning).
1697 1697  
1698 -**Other Significant Data Points:**
1621 +Regression Findings:
1699 1699  
1700 -Study frames this shift as a positive move toward diversity, ignoring implications for displaced White cultural representation.
1623 +White viewers preference for Black models increases by ~0.0128 d/year since 1956 (p < 0.05).
1701 1701  
1702 -No equivalent data was collected on Black or Hispanic attitudes toward White representation.
1625 +By 2022, White viewers showed positive directional preference for Black endorsers.
1626 +
1627 +Black viewer preferences remained stable across the 66 years.
1703 1703  {{/expandable}}
1704 1704  
1705 1705  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1706 1706  
1707 -**Primary Observations:**
1632 +Primary Observations:
1708 1708  
1709 -White Americans have become increasingly receptive or favorable toward Black figures in advertising, even over timeframes of widespread cultural change.
1634 +Ingroup favoritism is evident: Black viewers consistently prefer Black endorsers.
1710 1710  
1711 -These preferences held across product types, media formats, and ad genres.
1636 +White viewers’ preferences have shifted significantly over time toward favoring Black endorsers.
1712 1712  
1713 -**Subgroup Trends:**
1638 +Temporal Trends:
1714 1714  
1715 -Studies from the 1960s1980s showed preference for in-group racial representation, which has dropped sharply for Whites in recent decades.
1640 +Turning point: Around 20022003, White viewers began showing a positive (though small) preference for Black endorsers.
1716 1716  
1717 -The largest positive attitudinal shift occurred between 1995–2020, coinciding with major DEI and cultural programming trends.
1642 +Moderator Effects:
1718 1718  
1719 -**Specific Case Analysis:**
1644 +Low anti-Black prejudice and low White ethnic identification correlate with greater White preference for Black endorsers.
1720 1720  
1721 -The authors position this asprogress, but offer no critical reflection on the effects of displacing White imagery from national advertising narratives.
1646 +Economic hardship (e.g., high unemployment) slightly reduces White preference for Black endorsers.
1722 1722  
1723 -Completely omits consumer preference studies in countries outside the U.S., especially in more homogeneous nations.
1648 +Identification Model:
1649 +
1650 +Preference changes are stronger when outcomes measure identification with endorsers (e.g., similarity, attractiveness).
1724 1724  {{/expandable}}
1725 1725  
1726 1726  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1727 1727  
1728 -**Strengths of the Study:**
1655 +Strengths of the Study:
1729 1729  
1730 -Large-scale dataset across decades provides a clear empirical view of long-term trends.
1657 +Longest-running meta-analysis on interracial preferences in advertising.
1731 1731  
1732 -Useful as a benchmark of how White American preferences have evolved under sociocultural pressure.
1659 +Includes multilevel modeling and 21 meta-analytic covariates.
1733 1733  
1734 -**Limitations of the Study:**
1661 +Accounts for both perceiver and societal context, and controls for publication bias.
1735 1735  
1736 -Fails to ask whether increasing diversity is consumer-driven or culturally imposed.
1663 +Limitations:
1737 1737  
1738 -Ignores the potential alienation or displacement of White cultural identity from mainstream advertising.
1665 +Only examines Black and White racial dynamics—doesnt cover Hispanic, Asian, or multiracial groups.
1739 1739  
1740 -Assumes “diverse equals better without testing economic or emotional impact of those shifts.
1667 +72% of effect sizes are from student samples (not fully generalizable).
1741 1741  
1742 -**Suggestions for Improvement:**
1669 +Social desirability bias may affect lab-based responses.
1743 1743  
1744 -Include non-White viewer reactions to all-White or traditional American imagery for balance.
1671 +Suggestions for Improvement:
1745 1745  
1746 -Test whether consumers notice racial proportions or experience fatigue from overcorrection.
1673 +Include field experiments and more representative samples (age, class, ideology).
1747 1747  
1748 -Explore regional or class-based variance among White viewers, not just aggregate averages.
1675 +Examine how Black models are portrayed, not just if they are shown.
1676 +
1677 +Extend research to other racial groups and multiracial representations.
1749 1749  {{/expandable}}
1750 1750  
1751 1751  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1752 1752  
1753 -Demonstrates how White cultural imagery has been steadily replaced or downplayed in the public sphere.
1682 +Provides empirical support for the dynamic shift in White American attitudes over time.
1754 1754  
1755 -Useful for showing how marketing professionals and researchers frame White displacement as “progress.
1684 +Directly informs discussions about media representation, consumer behavior, and racial identity.
1756 1756  
1757 -Empirically supports the decline of White in-group preference — possibly due to reeducation, guilt framing, or media saturation.
1686 +Supports policy and commercial arguments for including more diverse models in advertising.
1758 1758  {{/expandable}}
1759 1759  
1760 1760  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1761 1761  
1762 -Study how overrepresentation of minorities in advertising compares to actual demographics.
1691 +Expand analysis to Latino, Asian, and multiracial models in media.
1763 1763  
1764 -Examine whether consumers feel represented or alienated by identity-based marketing.
1693 +Study real-world (non-lab) consumer reactions to racial diversity in advertising.
1765 1765  
1766 -Investigate the psychological and cultural impact of long-term demographic displacement in national advertising.
1767 -{{/expandable}}
1695 +Investigate how economic anxiety influences racial preferences in other domains (e.g., hiring, education).
1768 1768  
1769 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1770 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.2501_JAR-2022-028.pdf]]
1697 +Explore how virtual influencers or AI-generated models affect racial perceptions.
1771 1771  {{/expandable}}
1772 -{{/expandable}}
1773 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 1838  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1839 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf]]
1701 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:lenk-et-al-white-americans-preference-for-black-people-in-advertising-has-increased-in-the-past-66-years-a-meta-analysis.pdf]]
1840 1840  {{/expandable}}
1841 1841  {{/expandable}}
1842 -
1843 -
1844 -{{expandable summary="Study: Cultural Voyeurism – A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"}}
1845 -**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
1846 -**Date of Publication:** *2018*
1847 -**Author(s):** *Osei Appiah*
1848 -**Title:** *"Cultural Voyeurism: A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"*
1849 -**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
1850 -**Subject Matter:** *Intergroup contact, racial stereotypes, media, identity formation*
1851 -
1852 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1853 -1. **No empirical dataset** — this is a theoretical framework paper, not a quantitative study.
1854 -2. **Heavily cites prior empirical work**, including:
1855 - - Czopp & Monteith (2006) on “complimentary stereotypes”
1856 - - Armstrong et al. (1992), Entman & Rojecki (2000) on media distortion of race
1857 - - Pettigrew et al. (2011) on intergroup contact
1858 -
1859 -3. **Statistical implications:** Repeatedly emphasizes the role of media in shaping racial beliefs when direct interracial contact is absent.
1860 -{{/expandable}}
1861 -
1862 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1863 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1864 - - Defines *cultural voyeurism* as the process of using media to observe and learn about other racial/ethnic groups.
1865 - - Claims it can both reinforce stereotypes and reduce prejudice depending on context.
1866 - - Suggests that Whites’ fascination with Black culture (e.g., hip-hop, athleticism) is a driver of empathy and improved race relations.
1867 -
1868 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1869 - - White youth are singled out as cultural voyeurs increasingly emulating Black identity for social cachet (“coolness”).
1870 - - Positive media portrayals of Blacks (e.g., in entertainment) said to reduce racial bias.
1871 -
1872 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1873 - - No case study provided, but mentions “Duck Dynasty” and “hip-hop culture” as stereotyped White/Black identity constructs respectively.
1874 -{{/expandable}}
1875 -
1876 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1877 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1878 - - Recognizes media’s dual role in shaping intergroup perception.
1879 - - Accurately captures the obsession with racial “coolness” as a social phenomenon.
1880 -
1881 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1882 - - Frames White identification with Black culture as inherently progressive, ignoring issues of **anti-White displacement**.
1883 - - Treats *positive stereotypes of minorities* (e.g., athleticism, musicality) as meaningful substitutes for structural reality.
1884 - - Lacks any meaningful inquiry into *reverse cultural voyeurism* (i.e., non-Whites voyeuristically consuming and appropriating White identity or values).
1885 -
1886 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1887 - - Should confront whether “cultural voyeurism” ultimately erodes group boundaries and majority cultural integrity.
1888 - - Needs empirical validation of claims.
1889 - - Avoids uncomfortable realities about how White identity is increasingly stigmatized in media — which undermines genuine empathy or parity.
1890 -{{/expandable}}
1891 -
1892 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1893 -- Helps explain how **media conditioning** primes young Whites to *admire, emulate, and eventually submit* to Black cultural dominance.
1894 -- 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.
1895 -- Useful in chapters/sections covering cultural appropriation *in reverse* — not by Whites, but **of Whiteness** by outsiders for critique and exploitation.
1896 -{{/expandable}}
1897 -
1898 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1899 -1. Are there longitudinal studies showing cultural voyeurism weakening in-group preference among Whites?
1900 -2. Does this phenomenon correspond to decreased fertility, civic participation, or political alignment with group interest?
1901 -3. How do non-Western societies handle voyeuristic consumption of majority culture — do they permit or punish it?
1902 -{{/expandable}}
1903 -
1904 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1905 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:Cultural Voyeurism A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Intera.pdf]]
1906 -{{/expandable}}
1907 -{{/expandable}}
1908 -
Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -472.9 KB
Content
lai2014.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -15.4 MB
Content