... |
... |
@@ -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* |
... |
... |
@@ -1403,76 +1403,6 @@ |
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 |
1477 |
**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education* |
1478 |
1478 |
**Date of Publication:** *2019* |
... |
... |
@@ -2051,139 +2051,3 @@ |
2051 |
2051 |
[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.2501_JAR-2022-028.pdf]] |
2052 |
2052 |
{{/expandable}} |
2053 |
2053 |
{{/expandable}} |
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 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
2120 |
|
-[[Download Full Study>>attach:Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf]] |
2121 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
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 |
|
- |