0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

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

From version 120.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 06:04
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 110.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 02:53
Change comment: Uploaded new attachment "lenk-et-al-white-americans-preference-for-black-people-in-advertising-has-increased-in-the-past-66-years-a-meta-analysis.pdf", version 1.1

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -647,287 +647,6 @@
647 647  
648 648  = Dating =
649 649  
650 -{{expandable summary="Study: Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace – Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"}}
651 -**Source:** *Social Forces*
652 -**Date of Publication:** *2016*
653 -**Author(s):** *Stephanie M. Curington, Kevin K. Anderson, and Jennifer Glass*
654 -**Title:** *"Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace: Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"*
655 -**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007](https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007)
656 -**Subject Matter:** *Race and Dating, Multiracial Identity, Online Behavior*
657 -
658 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
659 -1. **General Observations:**
660 - - Data drawn from **over 1 million messaging records** from an online dating site.
661 - - Focused on how **monoracial users** (especially Whites) interact with **multiracial daters**.
662 -
663 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
664 - - **Multiracial Black/White and Asian/White women** received **fewer responses from White men** than their monoracial counterparts.
665 - - White daters showed **stronger preferences for monoracial identities**, particularly **own-race pairings**.
666 -
667 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
668 - - **Multiracial men** fared worse than multiracial women across most pairings.
669 - - **Latina/White and Asian/White multiracial women** were **more positively received by Black and Hispanic men**.
670 -{{/expandable}}
671 -
672 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
673 -1. **Primary Observations:**
674 - - White users demonstrated a clear pattern of **in-group preference**, preferring other White users (monoracial or partially White) over more ambiguous multiracial identities.
675 - - Authors suggest this reflects **"boundary-maintaining behavior"** and **"latent racial bias"**.
676 -
677 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
678 - - **Multiracial women with partial minority backgrounds** were more acceptable to non-White men than White men.
679 - - Multiracial daters were **often treated as ambiguous or “less desirable”** in ways the authors frame as **resistance to racial integration**.
680 -
681 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
682 - - The most rejected group? **Black/White multiracial men**, especially by **White women**, which the authors do not frame as bias in the same way.
683 - - The study shows **asymmetrical concern** — when Whites select inwardly, it's seen as racial boundary policing; when minorities do it, it's not pathologized.
684 -{{/expandable}}
685 -
686 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
687 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
688 - - Large, real-world dataset gives useful behavioral insight into **racial preferences in dating**.
689 - - Raises legitimate questions about **how race, desire, and group identity intersect**.
690 -
691 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
692 - - Frames **normal in-group preference among Whites as "resistance to multiraciality"**, rather than neutral human patterning.
693 - - Ignores **similar or stronger in-group preference among Black and Asian users**, which could indicate *universal patterns*, not White exceptionalism.
694 - - Uses CRT framing to subtly **morally indict Whites for preferring Whites**, while exempting other groups.
695 -
696 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
697 - - Treat all in-group preference equally across racial groups — not just when Whites do it.
698 - - Disaggregate by age, education, and regional variation to control for confounds.
699 - - Consider whether **multiracial identity is ambiguous** by nature and if that ambiguity reduces clarity of signals in dating.
700 -{{/expandable}}
701 -
702 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
703 -- Provides a data point in the **ongoing academic effort to pathologize White selectiveness**, even in private, personal domains like dating.
704 -- Demonstrates how **racial preferences are only considered “problematic” when they preserve White group boundaries**.
705 -- Supports analysis of **how DEI-aligned narratives seek to dissolve in-group loyalty under the guise of openness and inclusion**.
706 -{{/expandable}}
707 -
708 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
709 -1. Investigate how **media and dating platforms reinforce multiracialism as normative** despite evidence of natural in-group selection.
710 -2. Study the **psychological effects of being told your preferences are morally wrong if you're White**.
711 -3. Explore how **multiracial identities are strategically framed** depending on political or cultural goals — exoticization, integration, or guilt projection.
712 -{{/expandable}}
713 -
714 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
715 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:Curington et al. - Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Websit.pdf]]
716 -{{/expandable}}
717 -{{/expandable}}
718 -
719 -
720 -{{expandable summary="Study: The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"}}
721 -**Source:** *Porn Studies*
722 -**Date of Publication:** *2015*
723 -**Author(s):** *Noah Tsika*
724 -**Title:** *"The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"*
725 -**DOI:** [10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389](https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389)
726 -**Subject Matter:** *Pornography Studies, Race and Sexuality, Cultural Critique*
727 -
728 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
729 -1. **General Observations:**
730 - - This is a **qualitative content analysis** of gonzo pornography, particularly interracial porn involving Black men and White women.
731 - - The author reviews **select films, not a dataset**, using them to extrapolate broad cultural claims about race and sexuality.
732 -
733 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
734 - - Claims that **interracial porn “others” and dehumanizes Black men**, yet selectively **frames Black male sexual aggression as liberatory**.
735 - - The author accuses White male consumers of **fetishizing Black men** as both threats and tools for their own “colonial guilt.”
736 -
737 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
738 - - No empirical evidence, just interpretive readings of scenes and film dialogue.
739 - - Repeatedly criticizes **White directors and actors** as complicit in perpetuating “White supremacy through porn.”
740 -{{/expandable}}
741 -
742 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
743 -1. **Primary Observations:**
744 - - Argues that **gonzo interracial porn functions as racial propaganda**, reinforcing White guilt while commodifying Black masculinity.
745 - - Portrays White women as willing participants in a fantasy of racial domination that allegedly “liberates” Black men.
746 -
747 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
748 - - White male viewers are pathologized as both sexually repressed and voyeuristically complicit in anti-Black racism.
749 - - Black male performers are framed as both victims of racial commodification and **agents of resistance through hypersexuality**.
750 -
751 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
752 - - Cites scenes where Black male actors degrade or dominate White women as **“transgressive acts” that destabilize White power**, rather than examples of racial hostility or objectification.
753 - - The narrative treats **racially charged sexual violence as deconstructive**, only when it reverses traditional racial dynamics.
754 -{{/expandable}}
755 -
756 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
757 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
758 - - Useful in showcasing how **critical race theory invades even the most apolitical domains** (porn consumption) and turns them into race war battlegrounds.
759 - - Offers insight into how **White heterosexuality is recoded as colonialism** in activist academia.
760 -
761 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
762 - - **No statistical basis**, relies entirely on biased interpretive analysis of fringe media.
763 - - Presumes **intent and audience motivation** without surveys, viewership data, or cross-cultural comparison.
764 - - Treats Black aggression as empowering and White sexuality as inherently oppressive — a double standard.
765 -
766 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
767 - - Include comparative data on how different racial groups are portrayed in pornography across genres.
768 - - Analyze how **minority-run porn studios frame interracial themes** — not just White-directed media.
769 - - Address how racial fetishization **harms all groups**, not just Black men.
770 -{{/expandable}}
771 -
772 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
773 -- Exemplifies how **racialized sexual narratives are reinterpreted to indict White identity**, even in consumer entertainment.
774 -- Shows how **DEI and CRT frameworks are applied to pornographic material** to pathologize White maleness while sanctifying non-White hypermasculinity.
775 -- Highlights the **academic bias that treats transgressive content as empowering when it serves anti-White narratives**.
776 -{{/expandable}}
777 -
778 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
779 -1. Study how **interracial porn narratives differ when produced by non-White vs. White directors**.
780 -2. Examine **how racial power is portrayed in same-sex vs. heterosexual interracial porn**.
781 -3. Investigate whether the **fetishization of Black masculinity fuels unrealistic expectations and destructive stereotypes** for both Black and White men.
782 -{{/expandable}}
783 -
784 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
785 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:Dinest - The White Man's Burden Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity.pdf]]
786 -{{/expandable}}
787 -{{/expandable}}
788 -
789 -
790 -{{expandable summary="Study: Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"}}
791 -**Source:** *Social Science Research*
792 -**Date of Publication:** *2009*
793 -**Author(s):** *Cynthia Feliciano, Belinda Robnett, Golnaz Komaie*
794 -**Title:** *"Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"*
795 -**DOI:** [10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004)
796 -**Subject Matter:** *Online Dating, Racial Preferences, CRT Framing of White Intimacy*
797 -
798 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
799 -1. **General Observations:**
800 - - Based on data from **Love@aol.com**, analyzing **over 6,000 profiles** from California.
801 - - The study investigated **racial preferences listed explicitly** in dating profiles.
802 -
803 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
804 - - **White women were least likely to express openness to interracial dating**, particularly with Black and Asian men.
805 - - **White men also showed exclusion**, but were more open than White women.
806 -
807 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
808 - - The authors labeled preference for one’s own race as **“racial exclusion”**.
809 - - Profiles by non-White users expressing same-race preferences were **not similarly problematized**.
810 -{{/expandable}}
811 -
812 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
813 -1. **Primary Observations:**
814 - - **White in-group preference was framed as discriminatory**, regardless of intent or context.
815 - - Dating preferences were interpreted as a **“reinforcement of racial hierarchies”**.
816 -
817 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
818 - - The study suggested **White women’s selectivity** stemmed from **cultural and structural advantages**, implying racial gatekeeping.
819 - - Did not critically examine **non-White preferences** for their own race.
820 -
821 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
822 - - Highlighted that **Latina and Asian women were more open to White men** than to men of their own ethnicity, which was not treated as exclusionary.
823 - - **No racial preference was criticized except when it protected White boundaries.**
824 -{{/expandable}}
825 -
826 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
827 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
828 - - Large dataset from real-world dating profiles.
829 - - Provides rare insight into **gendered patterns of racial preference**.
830 -
831 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
832 - - **Frames personal preference as political discrimination** when expressed by White users.
833 - - **Fails to control for cultural compatibility, attraction patterns, or religious values.**
834 - - **Double standard** in analysis — **non-White selectivity is ignored or justified.**
835 -
836 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
837 - - Should distinguish **racial animus from in-group preference**.
838 - - Include **psychological, aesthetic, and cultural compatibility data**.
839 - - Apply **equal critical lens to all racial groups**, not just Whites.
840 -{{/expandable}}
841 -
842 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
843 -- Reinforces how CRT-aligned research pathologizes **White in-group dating preferences**.
844 -- Supports the claim that **White intimacy boundaries are uniquely scrutinized** and politicized.
845 -- Demonstrates how even non-political behavior (e.g., dating) is racialized when it involves Whites.
846 -{{/expandable}}
847 -
848 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
849 -1. Study how **dating preferences vary by upbringing, media influence, and culture**, not just race.
850 -2. Analyze **racial preferences across all groups** with equal rigor and skepticism.
851 -3. Examine the **mental health impact of stigmatizing in-group preference** among Whites.
852 -{{/expandable}}
853 -
854 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
855 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.ssresearch.2009.04.004.pdf]]
856 -{{/expandable}}
857 -{{/expandable}}
858 -
859 -
860 -{{expandable summary="Study: Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World"}}
861 -**Source:** *Journal of European Psychoanalysis*
862 -**Date of Publication:** *2009*
863 -**Author(s):** *Kristen Fink* *Jewish*))
864 -**Title:** *"Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World: Sexual relationships between black men and white women as a cause of decline"*
865 -**DOI:** *Unavailable – Psychoanalytic essay publication*
866 -**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sexuality, Psychoanalysis, Cultural Demoralization*
867 -
868 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
869 -1. **General Observations:**
870 - - This is a **psychoanalytic essay**, not an empirical study.
871 - - Uses **Freudian and Lacanian theory** to explore symbolic meanings of interracial sex.
872 - - Frames **Black male–White female pairings** as psychologically disruptive to the White male ego and Western civilization.
873 -
874 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
875 - - Positions **Black men as symbolic rivals** to emasculated Western (White) men.
876 - - **White women’s interracial attraction** is framed as rebellion or rejection of Western order.
877 -
878 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
879 - - The essay proposes that **sexual representation in media** is demoralizing to White culture.
880 - - Uses **high theory language** to justify what is ultimately an anti-White cultural narrative.
881 -{{/expandable}}
882 -
883 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
884 -1. **Primary Observations:**
885 - - **Interracial sexual dynamics** are framed as central to **Western decline**.
886 - - **White masculinity is portrayed as passive, obsolete, or neurotic** in contrast to hypermasculinized Blackness.
887 -
888 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
889 - - Suggests White men internalize emasculation through exposure to interracial symbolism.
890 - - Sees **cultural loss of confidence** in White society as stemming from racial-sexual symbolism.
891 -
892 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
893 - - Analyzes media tropes (e.g., interracial porn, pop culture) through the lens of psychoanalytic guilt and transgression.
894 - - Never critiques the **ideological project of glorifying Blackness at the expense of White identity**.
895 -{{/expandable}}
896 -
897 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
898 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
899 - - Reveals how **elite academic disciplines like psychoanalysis** are used to mask anti-White narratives in esoteric jargon.
900 - - Serves as **ideological evidence** of demoralization tactics embedded in cultural theory.
901 -
902 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
903 - - No empirical data, surveys, or statistical analysis — purely speculative.
904 - - **Does not critique hypersexualization of Black men** or the dehumanizing aspects of the fetish.
905 - - Assumes **White masculinity must passively accept its symbolic erasure** as psychoanalytically “natural.”
906 -
907 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
908 - - Include **perspectives from White men and women** on how these portrayals affect their psychological well-being.
909 - - Disentangle psychoanalytic theory from **racial guilt ideology**.
910 - - Explore **mutual respect-based frameworks** for interracial dynamics rather than ones rooted in humiliation or power symbolism.
911 -{{/expandable}}
912 -
913 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
914 -- Illustrates how **race, sex, and culture are manipulated to undermine White self-perception**.
915 -- Demonstrates how **academic elites frame White decline as psychologically necessary or deserved**.
916 -- Provides ideological background for modern media trends that eroticize racial power imbalance.
917 -{{/expandable}}
918 -
919 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
920 -1. Analyze how psychoanalytic language is used to **justify racial inversion in cultural dominance**.
921 -2. Examine the **role of pornography in demoralization campaigns** targeting White men.
922 -3. Explore how elite journals create **ideological cover for overt anti-White sentiment**.
923 -{{/expandable}}
924 -
925 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
926 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.Fink_Black_Penis_Demoralization.pdf]]
927 -{{/expandable}}
928 -{{/expandable}}
929 -
930 -
931 931  {{expandable summary="Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"}}
932 932  **Source:** *JAMA Network Open*
933 933  **Date of Publication:** *2020*
... ... @@ -1403,138 +1403,66 @@
1403 1403  
1404 1404  = Whiteness & White Guilt =
1405 1405  
1406 -{{expandable summary="Study: Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"}}
1407 -**Source:** *Psychological Science*
1408 -**Date of Publication:** *2014*
1409 -**Author(s):** *Caleb E. Lai, Anthony G. Greenwald, et al.*
1410 -**Title:** *"Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"*
1411 -**DOI:** [10.1177/0956797614535812](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535812)
1412 -**Subject Matter:** *Implicit Bias, Racial Psychology, Psychological Conditioning*
1413 -
1414 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1415 -1. **General Observations:**
1416 - - Tested **17 different interventions** across **6,321 participants**, all measured via IAT (Implicit Association Test).
1417 - - Focused exclusively on reducing **pro-White, anti-Black preferences** — no reciprocal testing on anti-White bias.
1418 -
1419 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1420 - - Educational and exposure-based interventions (e.g., multiculturalism, egalitarian messaging) failed to reduce bias significantly.
1421 - - Most effective short-term results came from **trauma-based or emotionally coercive interventions**.
1422 -
1423 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1424 - - 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.
1425 - - Effects of even the most extreme interventions **dissipated within 24–72 hours**, with no long-term behavioral change.
1426 -{{/expandable}}
1427 -
1428 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1429 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1430 - - The interventions that produced the most dramatic IAT changes used **emotionally graphic narratives** depicting Whites as violent aggressors and Blacks as saviors.
1431 - - Merely showing positive Black images or promoting egalitarian values had minimal effect on implicit associations.
1432 -
1433 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1434 - - 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.
1435 - - 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.
1436 -
1437 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1438 - - 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.
1439 - - The study was **cited by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)** to justify DEI-aligned policy recommendations.
1440 -{{/expandable}}
1441 -
1442 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1443 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1444 - - Large sample size and systematic comparison across diverse intervention types.
1445 - - Clearly shows that **implicit preference is resilient** and not easily changed by education or exposure alone.
1446 -
1447 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1448 - - The most “effective” methods **relied on emotional manipulation, not persuasion or evidence**.
1449 - - Assumes **natural in-group preference is pathological** when expressed by White subjects but makes no effort to test other groups.
1450 - - **Zero attention to pro-Black or anti-White bias** — only White attitudes are pathologized.
1451 -
1452 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1453 - - Test the **psychological harm** and ethical implications of using graphic racial trauma to coerce attitude change.
1454 - - Include interventions that **strengthen ingroup empathy** without demonizing other groups.
1455 - - Disaggregate bias by **class, region, and individual experience**, rather than racially reducing all bias to “Whiteness.”
1456 -{{/expandable}}
1457 -
1458 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1459 -- Provides direct evidence that **DEI-style implicit bias training** is based on emotionally abusive and **anti-White psychological framing**.
1460 -- Shows how **social science selectively targets Whites for attitude correction**, often using fictionalized racial trauma scenarios.
1461 -- Demonstrates that even extreme interventions **fail to achieve long-term change**, undermining the scientific justification for such policies.
1462 -{{/expandable}}
1463 -
1464 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1465 -1. Investigate **implicit bias training outcomes** in real-world institutional settings.
1466 -2. Study **the ethical limits of psychological reprogramming** in DEI policies.
1467 -3. Explore **natural ingroup preference across all races** using morally neutral frameworks.
1468 -{{/expandable}}
1469 -
1470 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1471 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:lai2014.pdf]]
1472 -{{/expandable}}
1473 -{{/expandable}}
1474 -
1475 -
1476 1476  {{expandable summary="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}}
1477 -**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1478 -**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1479 -**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1480 -**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1481 -**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1482 -**Subject Matter:** *Critical Race Theory, Sports Sociology, Anti-White Institutional Framing*
1126 +**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1127 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1128 +**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1129 +**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1130 +**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1131 +**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sports, Higher Education, Institutional Racism*
1483 1483  
1484 1484  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1485 1485  1. **General Observations:**
1486 - - Based on **47 athlete interviews**, cherry-picked from non-revenue Division I sports.
1487 - - The study claims **segregation”**, but presents no evidence of actual exclusion or policy bias — just demographic imbalance.
1135 + - Analyzed **47 college athlete narratives** to explore racial disparities in non-revenue sports.
1136 + - Found three interrelated themes: **racial segregation, racial innocence, and racial protection**.
1488 1488  
1489 1489  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1490 - - Attributes **White participation** in certain sports to "systemic racism", ignoring **self-selection, geography, and cultural affinity**.
1491 - - Claims White athletes are “protected” from race discussions — but never engages with **Black overrepresentation in revenue sports**.
1139 + - **Predominantly white sports programs** reinforce racial hierarchies in college athletics.
1140 + - **Recruitment policies favor white athletes** from affluent, suburban backgrounds.
1492 1492  
1493 1493  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1494 - - White athletes are portrayed as **ignorant of their privilege**, a claim drawn entirely from CRT frameworks rather than behavior or outcome.
1495 - - **No empirical data** is offered on policy, scholarship distribution, or team selection criteria.
1143 + - White athletes are **socialized to remain unaware of racial privilege** in their athletic careers.
1144 + - Media and institutional narratives protect white athletes from discussions on race and systemic inequities.
1496 1496  {{/expandable}}
1497 1497  
1498 1498  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1499 1499  1. **Primary Observations:**
1500 - - Frames **normal demographic patterns** (e.g., majority-White rosters in tennis or rowing) as "institutional whiteness".
1501 - - **Ignores the structural dominance** of Black athletes in high-profile revenue sports like football and basketball.
1149 + - Colleges **actively recruit white athletes** from majority-white communities.
1150 + - Institutional policies **uphold whiteness** by failing to challenge racial biases in recruitment and team culture.
1502 1502  
1503 1503  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1504 - - White athletes are criticized for **lacking racial awareness**, reinforcing the moral framing of **Whiteness as inherently problematic**.
1505 - - **Cultural preference, individual merit, and athletic subculture** are all excluded from consideration.
1153 + - **White athletes show limited awareness** of their racial advantage in sports.
1154 + - **Black athletes are overrepresented** in revenue-generating sports but underrepresented in non-revenue teams.
1506 1506  
1507 1507  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1508 - - Argues that college sports **reinforce racial hierarchy** without ever showing how White athletes benefit more than Black athletes.
1509 - - Offers **no comparative analysis** of scholarships, graduation rates, or media portrayal by race.
1157 + - Examines **how sports serve as a mechanism for maintaining racial privilege** in higher education.
1158 + - Discusses the **role of athletics in reinforcing systemic segregation and exclusion**.
1510 1510  {{/expandable}}
1511 1511  
1512 1512  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1513 1513  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1514 - - Useful as a clear example of **how CRT ideologues weaponize demography** to frame White majority spaces as inherently suspect.
1515 - - Shows how **academic literature systematically avoids symmetrical analysis** when outcomes favor White participants.
1163 + - **Comprehensive qualitative analysis** of race in college sports.
1164 + - Examines **institutional conditions** that sustain racial disparities in athletics.
1516 1516  
1517 1517  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1518 - - **Excludes revenue sports**, where Black athletes dominate by numbers, prestige, and compensation.
1519 - - **Fails to explain** how team composition emerges from voluntary participation, geography, or subcultural identity.
1520 - - Treats **racial imbalance as proof of racism**, bypassing merit, interest, or socioeconomic context.
1167 + - Focuses primarily on **Division I non-revenue sports**, limiting generalizability to other divisions.
1168 + - Lacks extensive **quantitative data on racial demographics** in college athletics.
1521 1521  
1522 1522  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1523 - - Include **White athlete perspectives** without pre-framing them as racially naive or complicit.
1524 - - **Compare all sports**, including those where Black athletes thrive and lead.
1525 - - Remove CRT framing and **evaluate outcomes empirically**, not ideologically.
1171 + - Future research should **compare recruitment policies across different sports and divisions**.
1172 + - Investigate **how athletic scholarships contribute to racial inequities in higher education**.
1526 1526  {{/expandable}}
1527 1527  
1528 1528  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1529 -- Demonstrates how **DEI-aligned research reframes benign patterns** as oppressive when White majorities are involved.
1530 -- Illustrates **anti-White academic framing** in environments where no institutional barrier exists.
1531 -- Provides a concrete example of how **CRT avoids acknowledging Black dominance in elite spaces** (revenue athletics).
1176 +- Provides evidence of **systemic racial biases** in college sports recruitment.
1177 +- Highlights **how institutional policies protect whiteness** in non-revenue athletics.
1178 +- Supports research on **diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in sports and education**.
1532 1532  {{/expandable}}
1533 1533  
1534 1534  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1535 -1. Investigate **racial self-sorting and cultural affiliation** in athletic participation.
1536 -2. Compare **media framing of White-majority vs. Black-majority sports**.
1537 -3. Study **how CRT narratives distort athletic merit and demographic outcomes**.
1182 +1. Investigate how **racial stereotypes influence college athlete recruitment**.
1183 +2. Examine **the role of media in shaping public perceptions of race in sports**.
1184 +3. Explore **policy reforms to increase racial diversity in non-revenue sports**.
1538 1538  {{/expandable}}
1539 1539  
1540 1540  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
... ... @@ -1542,70 +1542,66 @@
1542 1542  {{/expandable}}
1543 1543  {{/expandable}}
1544 1544  
1545 -
1546 1546  {{expandable summary="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
1547 -**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1548 -**Date of Publication:** *2016*
1549 -**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axt, M. Norman Oliver*
1193 +**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1194 +**Date of Publication:** *2016*
1195 +**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axta, M. Norman Oliver*
1550 1550  **Title:** *"Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs About Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites"*
1551 -**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1552 -**Subject Matter:** *Medical Ethics, Race in Medicine, Implicit Bias*
1197 +**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1198 +**Subject Matter:** *Health Disparities, Racial Bias, Medical Treatment*
1553 1553  
1554 1554  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1555 1555  1. **General Observations:**
1556 - - Analyzed responses from **222 white medical students and residents**.
1557 - - Investigated belief in **false biological differences between Black and White people**.
1558 - - Measured how those beliefs affected **pain ratings and treatment recommendations**.
1202 + - Study analyzed **racial disparities in pain perception and treatment recommendations**.
1203 + - Found that **white laypeople and medical students endorsed false beliefs about biological differences** between Black and white individuals.
1559 1559  
1560 1560  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1561 - - **50% of participants endorsed at least one false belief** (e.g., Black people have thicker skin or less sensitive nerve endings).
1562 - - Those who endorsed false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients' pain**.
1206 + - **50% of medical students surveyed endorsed at least one false belief about biological differences**.
1207 + - Participants who held these false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients pain levels**.
1563 1563  
1564 1564  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1565 - - Bias was **most prominent among first-year students**, diminishing slightly with experience.
1566 - - Study used **hypothetical case vignettes**, not real patient data.
1210 + - **Black patients were less likely to receive appropriate pain treatment** compared to white patients.
1211 + - The study confirmed that **historical misconceptions about racial differences still persist in modern medicine**.
1567 1567  {{/expandable}}
1568 1568  
1569 1569  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1570 1570  1. **Primary Observations:**
1571 - - False biological beliefs were **strongly correlated with racial disparity** in pain assessment.
1572 - - Endorsement of such beliefs led to **less appropriate treatment for Black patients** in fictional cases.
1216 + - False beliefs about biological racial differences **correlate with racial disparities in pain treatment**.
1217 + - Medical students and residents who endorsed these beliefs **showed greater racial bias in treatment recommendations**.
1573 1573  
1574 1574  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1575 - - Medical students with **no false beliefs showed no treatment bias**.
1576 - - No evidence was presented of **active discrimination** — bias appeared linked to **misinformation, not malice**.
1220 + - Physicians who **did not endorse these beliefs** showed **no racial bias** in treatment recommendations.
1221 + - Bias was **strongest among first-year medical students** and decreased slightly in later years of training.
1577 1577  
1578 1578  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1579 - - Fictional vignettes demonstrated that **misinformation about biology**, not systemic malice, led to unequal care.
1580 - - The study **did not show bias against White patients**, nor explore disparities affecting them.
1224 + - Study participants **underestimated Black patients' pain and recommended less effective pain treatments**.
1225 + - The study suggests that **racial disparities in medical care stem, in part, from these enduring false beliefs**.
1581 1581  {{/expandable}}
1582 1582  
1583 1583  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1584 1584  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1585 - - Provides valuable insight into **how medical myths can affect judgment**.
1586 - - Demonstrates the importance of **clinical education and evidence-based practice**.
1230 + - **First empirical study to connect false racial beliefs with medical decision-making**.
1231 + - Utilizes a **large sample of medical students and residents** from diverse institutions.
1587 1587  
1588 1588  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1589 - - Fails to examine **bias affecting White patients**, including under-treatment of opioid dependence or mental health.
1590 - - Only focuses on one direction of disparity, treating **White patients as a control** rather than a population worthy of study.
1591 - - **Overemphasizes "racial bias"** narrative despite the findings being more about **ignorance than intent**.
1234 + - The study focuses on **Black vs. white disparities**, leaving other racial/ethnic groups unexplored.
1235 + - Participants' responses were based on **hypothetical medical cases, not real-world treatment decisions**.
1592 1592  
1593 1593  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1594 - - Include **comparison groups for all races**, not just a binary Black–White framework.
1595 - - Investigate **systemic neglect of poor rural White populations**, especially in Appalachia and the Midwest.
1596 - - Clarify the **distinction between false belief and racial animus**, which the study conflates under CRT framing.
1238 + - Future research should examine **how these biases manifest in real clinical settings**.
1239 + - Investigate **whether medical training can correct these biases over time**.
1597 1597  {{/expandable}}
1598 1598  
1599 1599  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1600 -- Shows how **DEI-aligned narratives exploit limited findings** to vilify White professionals.
1601 -- Provides an example of a **legitimate medical education issue being repackaged as “racial bias.”**
1602 -- Highlights the **lack of reciprocal scrutiny** of how minorities may receive **preferential narrative framing** or **programmatic support**.
1243 +- Highlights **racial disparities in healthcare**, specifically in pain assessment and treatment.
1244 +- Supports **research on implicit bias and its impact on medical outcomes**.
1245 +- Provides evidence for **the need to address racial bias in medical education**.
1603 1603  {{/expandable}}
1604 1604  
1605 1605  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1606 -1. Study whether **DEI training reduces false beliefs** or simply **induces White guilt**.
1607 -2. Investigate **biases against White rural patients**, especially regarding **opioid or pain management stigma**.
1608 -3. Conduct **clinical outcome studies**, not self-reported vignettes, to test **real-world disparities**.
1249 +1. Investigate **interventions to reduce racial bias in medical decision-making**.
1250 +2. Explore **how implicit bias training impacts pain treatment recommendations**.
1251 +3. Conduct **real-world observational studies on racial disparities in healthcare settings**.
1609 1609  {{/expandable}}
1610 1610  
1611 1611  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
... ... @@ -1613,7 +1613,6 @@
1613 1613  {{/expandable}}
1614 1614  {{/expandable}}
1615 1615  
1616 -
1617 1617  {{expandable summary="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}}
1618 1618  **Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1619 1619  **Date of Publication:** *2015*
... ... @@ -1682,75 +1682,72 @@
1682 1682  {{/expandable}}
1683 1683  
1684 1684  {{expandable summary="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"}}
1685 -**Source:** *Urban Studies*
1686 -**Date of Publication:** *2023*
1687 -**Author(s):** *Nina Glick Schiller, Jens Schneider, Ayşe Çağlar*
1688 -**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1689 -**DOI:** [10.1177/00420980231170057](https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231170057)
1690 -**Subject Matter:** *Urban Diversity, Migration, Identity Politics*
1327 +**Source:** *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies*
1328 +**Date of Publication:** *2023*
1329 +**Author(s):** *Maurice Crul, Frans Lelie, Elif Keskiner, Laure Michon, Ismintha Waldring*
1330 +**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1331 +**DOI:** [10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548](https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548)
1332 +**Subject Matter:** *Urban Sociology, Migration Studies, Integration*
1691 1691  
1692 1692  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1693 1693  1. **General Observations:**
1694 - - Based on interviews with **White European residents** in three major European cities.
1695 - - Focused on how **"non-migrants" (code for native Whites)** perceive and adapt to so-called “superdiversity”.
1336 + - Study examines the role of **people without migration background** in majority-minority cities.
1337 + - Analyzes **over 3,000 survey responses and 150 in-depth interviews** from six North-Western European cities.
1696 1696  
1697 1697  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1698 - - Interviewees were **overwhelmingly framed as obstacles** to multicultural harmony.
1699 - - Researchers **pathologized attachment to local culture or ethnic identity** as “resistance to change.
1340 + - Explores differences in **integration, social interactions, and perceptions of diversity**.
1341 + - Studies how **class, education, and neighborhood composition** affect adaptation to urban diversity.
1700 1700  
1701 1701  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1702 - - Claims that even positive civic participation by Whites may **“reinforce white privilege.”**
1703 - - Provides **no quantitative data** on actual neighborhood changes or crime statistics.
1344 + - The study introduces the **Becoming a Minority (BaM) project**, a large-scale investigation of urban demographic shifts.
1345 + - **People without migration background perceive diversity differently**, with some embracing and others resisting change.
1704 1704  {{/expandable}}
1705 1705  
1706 1706  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1707 1707  1. **Primary Observations:**
1708 - - Argues that White natives, by simply existing and having a historical presence, **“shape urban inequality.”**
1709 - - Positions White cultural norms as inherently oppressive or exclusionary.
1350 + - The study **challenges traditional integration theories**, arguing that non-migrant groups also undergo adaptation processes.
1351 + - Some residents **struggle with demographic changes**, while others see diversity as an asset.
1710 1710  
1711 1711  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1712 - - Critiques White residents for seeking **cultural familiarity or demographic continuity.**
1713 - - Presents **White neighborhood cohesion** as a form of invisible boundary-making.
1354 + - Young, educated individuals in urban areas **are more open to cultural diversity**.
1355 + - Older and less mobile residents **report feelings of displacement and social isolation**.
1714 1714  
1715 1715  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1716 - - Interviews frame **normal concerns about safety, schooling, or housing** as coded “racism.
1717 - - Treats **multicultural disruption** as inherently positive, and **resistance as bigotry.**
1358 + - Examines how **people without migration background navigate majority-minority settings** in cities like Amsterdam and Vienna.
1359 + - Analyzes **whether former ethnic majority groups now perceive themselves as minorities**.
1718 1718  {{/expandable}}
1719 1719  
1720 1720  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1721 1721  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1722 - - Reveals how **social scientists increasingly treat Whiteness itself as a problem.**
1723 - - Offers an **unintentional case study in academic anti-White framing.**
1364 + - **Innovative approach** by examining the impact of migration on native populations.
1365 + - Uses **both qualitative and quantitative data** for robust analysis.
1724 1724  
1725 1725  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1726 - - **Completely ignores migrant-driven displacement** of working-class Whites.
1727 - - Makes **no attempt to understand White residents sympathetically**, only as barriers.
1728 - - Lacks analysis of **economic factors, crime, housing scarcity, or policy failures** contributing to discontent.
1368 + - Limited to **Western European urban settings**, missing perspectives from other global regions.
1369 + - Does not fully explore **policy interventions for fostering social cohesion**.
1729 1729  
1730 1730  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1731 - - Include **White perspectives without presuming guilt or fragility.**
1732 - - Disaggregate “White” by **class, locality, or experience** — not treat as a monolith.
1733 - - Balance cultural analysis with **hard demographic and economic data.**
1372 + - Expand research to **other geographical contexts** to understand migration effects globally.
1373 + - Investigate **long-term trends in urban adaptation and community building**.
1734 1734  {{/expandable}}
1735 1735  
1736 1736  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1737 -- Demonstrates how **academic literature increasingly stigmatizes White presence** in urban life.
1738 -- Shows how **“diversity” is defined as the absence or silence of native populations.**
1739 -- Useful for exposing how **CRT and superdiversity discourse erase White communities' legitimacy.**
1377 +- Provides a **new perspective on urban integration**, shifting focus from migrants to native-born populations.
1378 +- Highlights the **role of social and economic power in shaping urban diversity outcomes**.
1379 +- Challenges existing **assimilation theories by showing bidirectional adaptation in diverse cities**.
1740 1740  {{/expandable}}
1741 1741  
1742 1742  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1743 -1. Study the **psychological impact of demographic displacement** on native European populations.
1744 -2. Examine **rising crime and social fragmentation** in superdiverse” zones.
1745 -3. Analyze how **housing, schooling, and local economies** are impacted by mass migration.
1383 +1. Study how **local policies shape attitudes toward urban diversity**.
1384 +2. Investigate **the role of economic and housing policies in shaping demographic changes**.
1385 +3. Explore **how social networks influence perceptions of migration and diversity**.
1746 1746  {{/expandable}}
1747 1747  
1748 1748  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1749 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_00420980231170057.pdf]]
1389 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]
1750 1750  {{/expandable}}
1751 1751  {{/expandable}}
1752 1752  
1753 -
1754 1754  = Media =
1755 1755  
1756 1756  {{expandable summary="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic"}}
... ... @@ -1955,235 +1955,107 @@
1955 1955  {{/expandable}}
1956 1956  
1957 1957  {{expandable summary="Study: White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years"}}
1958 -Source: Journal of Advertising Research
1959 -Date of Publication: 2022
1960 -Author(s): Peter M. Lenk, Eric T. Bradlow, Randolph E. Bucklin, Sungeun (Clara) Kim
1597 +Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
1598 +Date of Publication: February 20, 2024
1599 +Author(s): Julia Diana Lenk, Jochen Hartmann, Henrik Sattler
1961 1961  Title: "White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years: A Meta-Analysis"
1962 -DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2022-028
1963 -Subject Matter: Advertising Trends, Racial Representation, Cultural Shifts
1601 +DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2307505121
1602 +Subject Matter: Advertising, Race, Consumer Behavior, Meta-Analysis
1964 1964  
1965 1965  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1966 1966  
1967 -**General Observations:**
1606 +Study Scale:
1968 1968  
1969 -Meta-analysis of 74 studies conducted between 1955 and 2020 on racial representation in advertising.
1608 +62 studies, 332 effect sizes, 10,186 participants (Black and White Americans).
1970 1970  
1971 -Sample included mostly White U.S. participants, with consistent tracking of their preferences.
1610 +Covers the period 1956–2022.
1972 1972  
1973 -**Subgroup Analysis:**
1612 +Cohens d Effect Sizes (Model-Free):
1974 1974  
1975 -Found a steady increase in positive responses toward Black models/actors in ads by White viewers.
1614 +Black viewers: d = 0.50 → strong, consistent ingroup preference for Black models.
1976 1976  
1977 -Recent decades show equal or greater preference for Black faces compared to White ones.
1616 +White viewers: d = –0.08 overall; pre-2000: d = –0.16 (ingroup); post-2000: d = +0.02 (outgroup leaning).
1978 1978  
1979 -**Other Significant Data Points:**
1618 +Regression Findings:
1980 1980  
1981 -Study frames this shift as a positive move toward diversity, ignoring implications for displaced White cultural representation.
1620 +White viewers preference for Black models increases by ~0.0128 d/year since 1956 (p < 0.05).
1982 1982  
1983 -No equivalent data was collected on Black or Hispanic attitudes toward White representation.
1622 +By 2022, White viewers showed positive directional preference for Black endorsers.
1623 +
1624 +Black viewer preferences remained stable across the 66 years.
1984 1984  {{/expandable}}
1985 1985  
1986 1986  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1987 1987  
1988 -**Primary Observations:**
1629 +Primary Observations:
1989 1989  
1990 -White Americans have become increasingly receptive or favorable toward Black figures in advertising, even over timeframes of widespread cultural change.
1631 +Ingroup favoritism is evident: Black viewers consistently prefer Black endorsers.
1991 1991  
1992 -These preferences held across product types, media formats, and ad genres.
1633 +White viewers’ preferences have shifted significantly over time toward favoring Black endorsers.
1993 1993  
1994 -**Subgroup Trends:**
1635 +Temporal Trends:
1995 1995  
1996 -Studies from the 1960s1980s showed preference for in-group racial representation, which has dropped sharply for Whites in recent decades.
1637 +Turning point: Around 20022003, White viewers began showing a positive (though small) preference for Black endorsers.
1997 1997  
1998 -The largest positive attitudinal shift occurred between 1995–2020, coinciding with major DEI and cultural programming trends.
1639 +Moderator Effects:
1999 1999  
2000 -**Specific Case Analysis:**
1641 +Low anti-Black prejudice and low White ethnic identification correlate with greater White preference for Black endorsers.
2001 2001  
2002 -The authors position this asprogress, but offer no critical reflection on the effects of displacing White imagery from national advertising narratives.
1643 +Economic hardship (e.g., high unemployment) slightly reduces White preference for Black endorsers.
2003 2003  
2004 -Completely omits consumer preference studies in countries outside the U.S., especially in more homogeneous nations.
1645 +Identification Model:
1646 +
1647 +Preference changes are stronger when outcomes measure identification with endorsers (e.g., similarity, attractiveness).
2005 2005  {{/expandable}}
2006 2006  
2007 2007  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2008 2008  
2009 -**Strengths of the Study:**
1652 +Strengths of the Study:
2010 2010  
2011 -Large-scale dataset across decades provides a clear empirical view of long-term trends.
1654 +Longest-running meta-analysis on interracial preferences in advertising.
2012 2012  
2013 -Useful as a benchmark of how White American preferences have evolved under sociocultural pressure.
1656 +Includes multilevel modeling and 21 meta-analytic covariates.
2014 2014  
2015 -**Limitations of the Study:**
1658 +Accounts for both perceiver and societal context, and controls for publication bias.
2016 2016  
2017 -Fails to ask whether increasing diversity is consumer-driven or culturally imposed.
1660 +Limitations:
2018 2018  
2019 -Ignores the potential alienation or displacement of White cultural identity from mainstream advertising.
1662 +Only examines Black and White racial dynamics—doesnt cover Hispanic, Asian, or multiracial groups.
2020 2020  
2021 -Assumes “diverse equals better without testing economic or emotional impact of those shifts.
1664 +72% of effect sizes are from student samples (not fully generalizable).
2022 2022  
2023 -**Suggestions for Improvement:**
1666 +Social desirability bias may affect lab-based responses.
2024 2024  
2025 -Include non-White viewer reactions to all-White or traditional American imagery for balance.
1668 +Suggestions for Improvement:
2026 2026  
2027 -Test whether consumers notice racial proportions or experience fatigue from overcorrection.
1670 +Include field experiments and more representative samples (age, class, ideology).
2028 2028  
2029 -Explore regional or class-based variance among White viewers, not just aggregate averages.
1672 +Examine how Black models are portrayed, not just if they are shown.
1673 +
1674 +Extend research to other racial groups and multiracial representations.
2030 2030  {{/expandable}}
2031 2031  
2032 2032  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2033 2033  
2034 -Demonstrates how White cultural imagery has been steadily replaced or downplayed in the public sphere.
1679 +Provides empirical support for the dynamic shift in White American attitudes over time.
2035 2035  
2036 -Useful for showing how marketing professionals and researchers frame White displacement as “progress.
1681 +Directly informs discussions about media representation, consumer behavior, and racial identity.
2037 2037  
2038 -Empirically supports the decline of White in-group preference — possibly due to reeducation, guilt framing, or media saturation.
1683 +Supports policy and commercial arguments for including more diverse models in advertising.
2039 2039  {{/expandable}}
2040 2040  
2041 2041  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2042 2042  
2043 -Study how overrepresentation of minorities in advertising compares to actual demographics.
1688 +Expand analysis to Latino, Asian, and multiracial models in media.
2044 2044  
2045 -Examine whether consumers feel represented or alienated by identity-based marketing.
1690 +Study real-world (non-lab) consumer reactions to racial diversity in advertising.
2046 2046  
2047 -Investigate the psychological and cultural impact of long-term demographic displacement in national advertising.
2048 -{{/expandable}}
1692 +Investigate how economic anxiety influences racial preferences in other domains (e.g., hiring, education).
2049 2049  
2050 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2051 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.2501_JAR-2022-028.pdf]]
1694 +Explore how virtual influencers or AI-generated models affect racial perceptions.
2052 2052  {{/expandable}}
2053 -{{/expandable}}
2054 2054  
2055 -{{expandable summary="Study: Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"}}
2056 -**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2057 -**Date of Publication:** *2020*
2058 -**Author(s):** *John A. Banas, Lauren L. Miller, David A. Braddock, Sun Kyong Lee*
2059 -**Title:** *"Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"*
2060 -**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqz032](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz032)
2061 -**Subject Matter:** *Media Psychology, Prejudice Reduction, Intergroup Relations*
2062 -
2063 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2064 -1. **General Observations:**
2065 - - Aggregated **71 studies involving 27,000+ participants**.
2066 - - Focused on how **media portrayals of out-groups (primarily minorities)** affect attitudes among dominant in-groups (i.e., Whites).
2067 -
2068 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
2069 - - **Fictional entertainment** had stronger effects than news.
2070 - - **Positive portrayals of minorities** correlated with significant reductions in “prejudice”.
2071 -
2072 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
2073 - - Effects were stronger when minority characters were portrayed as **warm, competent, and morally relatable**.
2074 - - Contact was more effective when it mimicked **face-to-face friendship narratives**.
2075 -{{/expandable}}
2076 -
2077 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2078 -1. **Primary Observations:**
2079 - - Media is a **powerful tool for shaping racial attitudes**, capable of reducing “prejudice” without real-world contact.
2080 - - **Repeated exposure** to positive portrayals of minorities led to increased acceptance and reduced negative bias.
2081 -
2082 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2083 - - **White participants** were the primary targets of reconditioning.
2084 - - Minority participants were not studied in terms of **prejudice against Whites**.
2085 -
2086 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2087 - - “Parasocial” relationships with minority characters (TV/movie exposure) had comparable psychological effects to actual friendships.
2088 - - Media framing functioned as a **top-down mechanism for social engineering**, not just passive reflection of society.
2089 -{{/expandable}}
2090 -
2091 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2092 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2093 - - High-quality quantitative meta-analysis with clear design and robust statistical handling.
2094 - - Acknowledges **media’s ability to alter long-held social beliefs** without physical contact.
2095 -
2096 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2097 - - Only defines “prejudice” as **negative attitudes from Whites toward minorities** — no exploration of anti-White media narratives or bias.
2098 - - Ignores the effects of **overexposure to minority portrayals** on cultural alienation or backlash.
2099 - - Assumes **assimilation into DEI norms is inherently positive**, and any reluctance to accept them is “prejudice”.
2100 -
2101 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2102 - - Study reciprocal dynamics — how **minority media portrayals impact attitudes toward Whites**.
2103 - - Investigate whether constant valorization of minorities leads to **resentment, guilt, or political disengagement** among White viewers.
2104 - - Analyze **media saturation effects**, especially in multicultural propaganda and corporate DEI messaging.
2105 -{{/expandable}}
2106 -
2107 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2108 -- Provides **direct evidence** that media is being used to **reshape racial attitudes** through emotional, parasocial contact.
2109 -- Reinforces concern that **“tolerance” is engineered via asymmetric emotional exposure**, not organic consensus.
2110 -- Useful for documenting how **Whiteness is often treated as a bias to be corrected**, not a culture to be respected.
2111 -{{/expandable}}
2112 -
2113 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2114 -1. Investigate **reverse parasocial effects** — how negative portrayals of White men affect self-perception and mental health.
2115 -2. Study how **mass entertainment normalizes demographic shifts** and silences native concerns.
2116 -3. Compare effects of **Western vs. non-Western media systems** in promoting diversity narratives.
2117 -{{/expandable}}
2118 -
2119 2119  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2120 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf]]
1698 +[[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]]
2121 2121  {{/expandable}}
2122 2122  {{/expandable}}
2123 -
2124 -
2125 -{{expandable summary="Study: Cultural Voyeurism – A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"}}
2126 -**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2127 -**Date of Publication:** *2018*
2128 -**Author(s):** *Osei Appiah*
2129 -**Title:** *"Cultural Voyeurism: A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"*
2130 -**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
2131 -**Subject Matter:** *Intergroup contact, racial stereotypes, media, identity formation*
2132 -
2133 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2134 -1. **No empirical dataset** — this is a theoretical framework paper, not a quantitative study.
2135 -2. **Heavily cites prior empirical work**, including:
2136 - - Czopp & Monteith (2006) on “complimentary stereotypes”
2137 - - Armstrong et al. (1992), Entman & Rojecki (2000) on media distortion of race
2138 - - Pettigrew et al. (2011) on intergroup contact
2139 -
2140 -3. **Statistical implications:** Repeatedly emphasizes the role of media in shaping racial beliefs when direct interracial contact is absent.
2141 -{{/expandable}}
2142 -
2143 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2144 -1. **Primary Observations:**
2145 - - Defines *cultural voyeurism* as the process of using media to observe and learn about other racial/ethnic groups.
2146 - - Claims it can both reinforce stereotypes and reduce prejudice depending on context.
2147 - - Suggests that Whites’ fascination with Black culture (e.g., hip-hop, athleticism) is a driver of empathy and improved race relations.
2148 -
2149 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2150 - - White youth are singled out as cultural voyeurs increasingly emulating Black identity for social cachet (“coolness”).
2151 - - Positive media portrayals of Blacks (e.g., in entertainment) said to reduce racial bias.
2152 -
2153 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2154 - - No case study provided, but mentions “Duck Dynasty” and “hip-hop culture” as stereotyped White/Black identity constructs respectively.
2155 -{{/expandable}}
2156 -
2157 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2158 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2159 - - Recognizes media’s dual role in shaping intergroup perception.
2160 - - Accurately captures the obsession with racial “coolness” as a social phenomenon.
2161 -
2162 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2163 - - Frames White identification with Black culture as inherently progressive, ignoring issues of **anti-White displacement**.
2164 - - Treats *positive stereotypes of minorities* (e.g., athleticism, musicality) as meaningful substitutes for structural reality.
2165 - - Lacks any meaningful inquiry into *reverse cultural voyeurism* (i.e., non-Whites voyeuristically consuming and appropriating White identity or values).
2166 -
2167 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2168 - - Should confront whether “cultural voyeurism” ultimately erodes group boundaries and majority cultural integrity.
2169 - - Needs empirical validation of claims.
2170 - - Avoids uncomfortable realities about how White identity is increasingly stigmatized in media — which undermines genuine empathy or parity.
2171 -{{/expandable}}
2172 -
2173 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2174 -- Helps explain how **media conditioning** primes young Whites to *admire, emulate, and eventually submit* to Black cultural dominance.
2175 -- 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.
2176 -- Useful in chapters/sections covering cultural appropriation *in reverse* — not by Whites, but **of Whiteness** by outsiders for critique and exploitation.
2177 -{{/expandable}}
2178 -
2179 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2180 -1. Are there longitudinal studies showing cultural voyeurism weakening in-group preference among Whites?
2181 -2. Does this phenomenon correspond to decreased fertility, civic participation, or political alignment with group interest?
2182 -3. How do non-Western societies handle voyeuristic consumption of majority culture — do they permit or punish it?
2183 -{{/expandable}}
2184 -
2185 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2186 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:Cultural Voyeurism A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Intera.pdf]]
2187 -{{/expandable}}
2188 -{{/expandable}}
2189 -
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