0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

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

From version 121.1
edited by XWikiGuest
on 2025/06/19 19:12
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
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -XWiki.XWikiGuest
1 +XWiki.AdminAngriff
Content
... ... @@ -647,427 +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: “A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"}}
721 -**Source:** *Sociology of Race and Ethnicity*
722 -**Date of Publication:** *2020*
723 -**Author(s):** *Andrew R. Flores and Ariela Schachter*
724 -**Title:** *"“A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"*
725 -**DOI:** [10.1177/2332649219871232](https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649219871232)
726 -**Subject Matter:** *Interracial Dating, Racial Stereotyping, Online Behavior*
727 -
728 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
729 -1. **General Observations:**
730 - - Used **experimental survey data** from a nationally representative sample (N = 1,070).
731 - - Participants evaluated hypothetical dating profiles of White individuals who expressed interest in Black, Latino, or Asian partners.
732 -
733 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
734 - - **White men interested in Black women** were rated as **less cultured, more aggressive, and lower class**.
735 - - White women interested in Black men were **viewed as less intelligent and more promiscuous**.
736 - - **Interest in Asian partners** did not carry the same negative stereotypes; in some cases, it improved perceived desirability.
737 -
738 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
739 - - **Latino partners** were seen more neutrally, though men who dated them were seen as more “dominant.”
740 - - Across the board, **Whites who dated within their race were viewed most favorably**.
741 -{{/expandable}}
742 -
743 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
744 -1. **Primary Observations:**
745 - - Interracial daters—especially those dating Black individuals—are **subject to negative assumptions** about intelligence, class, and morality.
746 - - Stereotypes persist even in **hypothetical online contexts**, showing deep cultural associations.
747 -
748 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
749 - - White men who prefer Black women face **masculinity-linked stigma**, often tied to “urban” or “ghetto” tropes.
750 - - White women dating Black men are **framed as sexually deviant or socially undesirable**, particularly by other Whites.
751 -
752 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
753 - - The most negatively perceived pairing was **White woman/Black man**, reinforcing long-standing cultural anxieties.
754 - - Respondents judged interracial daters not just by race but by **projected cultural assimilation or rejection**.
755 -{{/expandable}}
756 -
757 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
758 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
759 - - Reveals **latent racial boundaries** in contemporary dating preferences.
760 - - Uses **controlled experimental design** to expose socially unacceptable but real biases.
761 -
762 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
763 - - Relies on **self-reported reactions to profiles**, not real-world dating behavior.
764 - - **Fails to analyze anti-White framing** in the assumptions about White participants who prefer other races.
765 - - Assumes stigma is irrational without investigating **rational in-group preference or cultural concerns**.
766 -
767 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
768 - - Include **reverse scenarios** (e.g., Black or Latino individuals expressing preference for Whites).
769 - - Examine how **media portrayal of interracial couples** influences perception and desirability.
770 - - Account for **class and education overlaps** that could explain perceived traits.
771 -{{/expandable}}
772 -
773 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
774 -- Highlights how **Whites who date outside their race—particularly with Blacks—are pathologized**, even within their own community.
775 -- Shows that **Whiteness is penalized** when paired with non-Whiteness, reinforcing social costs for racial mixing.
776 -- Useful for understanding **how stigma around interracial relationships is unevenly applied**, with anti-White moral overtones.
777 -{{/expandable}}
778 -
779 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
780 -1. Study how **in-group dating preferences differ across races** and are morally interpreted.
781 -2. Investigate how **class and education** affect perceptions of interracial relationships.
782 -3. Examine whether **Whites are disproportionately judged** when deviating from group norms vs. other races.
783 -{{/expandable}}
784 -
785 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
786 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_2332649219871232.pdf]]
787 -{{/expandable}}
788 -{{/expandable}}
789 -
790 -
791 -{{expandable summary="Study: E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"}}
792 -**Source:** *National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)*
793 -**Date of Publication:** *2024*
794 -**Author(s):** *Umit Gurun, Daniel Solomon*
795 -**Title:** *"E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"*
796 -**DOI:** [10.3386/w31978](https://doi.org/10.3386/w31978)
797 -**Subject Matter:** *Demography, Social Cohesion, Diversity Effects on Fertility*
798 -
799 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
800 -1. **General Observations:**
801 - - Used large-scale demographic, economic, and census data across **1,800+ U.S. counties**.
802 - - Found a **strong negative correlation between local diversity and White fertility rates**.
803 - - Quantified impact: a 1 SD increase in ethnic diversity leads to a **4–6% drop in birth rates**.
804 -
805 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
806 - - Decline most pronounced among **non-Hispanic Whites**, especially in suburban and semi-urban areas.
807 - - **No significant birth rate drop observed among Hispanic or Black populations** under the same conditions.
808 -
809 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
810 - - Diversity increases linked to **reduced marriage rates**, especially among Whites.
811 - - Authors suggest **“erosion of social cohesion and trust”** as mediating factors.
812 -{{/expandable}}
813 -
814 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
815 -1. **Primary Observations:**
816 - - Ethnic diversity significantly **reduces total fertility rates**, independent of economic or educational variables.
817 - - **Social fragmentation** and perceived dissimilarity drive fertility suppression.
818 -
819 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
820 - - White populations respond to diversity with lower family formation.
821 - - **Cultural distance** and loss of shared norms are possible causes.
822 -
823 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
824 - - High-diversity metro areas saw steepest declines in White birth rates over the past two decades.
825 - - Study challenges mainstream assumptions that diversity has neutral or positive demographic effects.
826 -{{/expandable}}
827 -
828 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
829 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
830 - - Offers **quantitative backing for claims long treated as taboo** in public discourse.
831 - - Applies **robust statistical methods** and cross-validates with multiple data sources.
832 -
833 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
834 - - Avoids discussing **racial preference, ethnic tension, or cultural conflict** explicitly.
835 - - Authors stop short of acknowledging **the demographic replacement implication** of sustained low White fertility.
836 -
837 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
838 - - Include **qualitative data on reasons for delayed or avoided parenthood** among Whites in diverse areas.
839 - - Examine **media messaging and policy environments** that could accelerate these trends.
840 -{{/expandable}}
841 -
842 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
843 -- Confirms a **central premise** of the White demographic decline thesis.
844 -- Demonstrates that **diversity is not neutral** but **functionally suppressive to White reproduction**.
845 -- Offers solid **empirical support against the utopian assumptions** of multiculturalism.
846 -{{/expandable}}
847 -
848 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
849 -1. Examine **fertility effects of diversity in European countries** experiencing immigration-driven change.
850 -2. Study **how school demographics and crime perception** affect reproductive decision-making.
851 -3. Explore **policy frameworks that support demographic stability for founding populations**.
852 -{{/expandable}}
853 -
854 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
855 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:12.Gurun_Solomon_Diversity_BirthRates.pdf]]
856 -{{/expandable}}
857 -{{/expandable}}
858 -
859 -
860 -{{expandable summary="Study: The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"}}
861 -**Source:** *Porn Studies*
862 -**Date of Publication:** *2015*
863 -**Author(s):** *Noah Tsika*
864 -**Title:** *"The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"*
865 -**DOI:** [10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389](https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389)
866 -**Subject Matter:** *Pornography Studies, Race and Sexuality, Cultural Critique*
867 -
868 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
869 -1. **General Observations:**
870 - - This is a **qualitative content analysis** of gonzo pornography, particularly interracial porn involving Black men and White women.
871 - - The author reviews **select films, not a dataset**, using them to extrapolate broad cultural claims about race and sexuality.
872 -
873 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
874 - - Claims that **interracial porn “others” and dehumanizes Black men**, yet selectively **frames Black male sexual aggression as liberatory**.
875 - - The author accuses White male consumers of **fetishizing Black men** as both threats and tools for their own “colonial guilt.”
876 -
877 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
878 - - No empirical evidence, just interpretive readings of scenes and film dialogue.
879 - - Repeatedly criticizes **White directors and actors** as complicit in perpetuating “White supremacy through porn.”
880 -{{/expandable}}
881 -
882 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
883 -1. **Primary Observations:**
884 - - Argues that **gonzo interracial porn functions as racial propaganda**, reinforcing White guilt while commodifying Black masculinity.
885 - - Portrays White women as willing participants in a fantasy of racial domination that allegedly “liberates” Black men.
886 -
887 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
888 - - White male viewers are pathologized as both sexually repressed and voyeuristically complicit in anti-Black racism.
889 - - Black male performers are framed as both victims of racial commodification and **agents of resistance through hypersexuality**.
890 -
891 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
892 - - 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.
893 - - The narrative treats **racially charged sexual violence as deconstructive**, only when it reverses traditional racial dynamics.
894 -{{/expandable}}
895 -
896 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
897 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
898 - - Useful in showcasing how **critical race theory invades even the most apolitical domains** (porn consumption) and turns them into race war battlegrounds.
899 - - Offers insight into how **White heterosexuality is recoded as colonialism** in activist academia.
900 -
901 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
902 - - **No statistical basis**, relies entirely on biased interpretive analysis of fringe media.
903 - - Presumes **intent and audience motivation** without surveys, viewership data, or cross-cultural comparison.
904 - - Treats Black aggression as empowering and White sexuality as inherently oppressive — a double standard.
905 -
906 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
907 - - Include comparative data on how different racial groups are portrayed in pornography across genres.
908 - - Analyze how **minority-run porn studios frame interracial themes** — not just White-directed media.
909 - - Address how racial fetishization **harms all groups**, not just Black men.
910 -{{/expandable}}
911 -
912 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
913 -- Exemplifies how **racialized sexual narratives are reinterpreted to indict White identity**, even in consumer entertainment.
914 -- Shows how **DEI and CRT frameworks are applied to pornographic material** to pathologize White maleness while sanctifying non-White hypermasculinity.
915 -- Highlights the **academic bias that treats transgressive content as empowering when it serves anti-White narratives**.
916 -{{/expandable}}
917 -
918 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
919 -1. Study how **interracial porn narratives differ when produced by non-White vs. White directors**.
920 -2. Examine **how racial power is portrayed in same-sex vs. heterosexual interracial porn**.
921 -3. Investigate whether the **fetishization of Black masculinity fuels unrealistic expectations and destructive stereotypes** for both Black and White men.
922 -{{/expandable}}
923 -
924 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
925 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:Dinest - The White Man's Burden Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity.pdf]]
926 -{{/expandable}}
927 -{{/expandable}}
928 -
929 -
930 -{{expandable summary="Study: Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"}}
931 -**Source:** *Social Science Research*
932 -**Date of Publication:** *2009*
933 -**Author(s):** *Cynthia Feliciano, Belinda Robnett, Golnaz Komaie*
934 -**Title:** *"Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"*
935 -**DOI:** [10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004)
936 -**Subject Matter:** *Online Dating, Racial Preferences, CRT Framing of White Intimacy*
937 -
938 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
939 -1. **General Observations:**
940 - - Based on data from **Love@aol.com**, analyzing **over 6,000 profiles** from California.
941 - - The study investigated **racial preferences listed explicitly** in dating profiles.
942 -
943 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
944 - - **White women were least likely to express openness to interracial dating**, particularly with Black and Asian men.
945 - - **White men also showed exclusion**, but were more open than White women.
946 -
947 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
948 - - The authors labeled preference for one’s own race as **“racial exclusion”**.
949 - - Profiles by non-White users expressing same-race preferences were **not similarly problematized**.
950 -{{/expandable}}
951 -
952 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
953 -1. **Primary Observations:**
954 - - **White in-group preference was framed as discriminatory**, regardless of intent or context.
955 - - Dating preferences were interpreted as a **“reinforcement of racial hierarchies”**.
956 -
957 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
958 - - The study suggested **White women’s selectivity** stemmed from **cultural and structural advantages**, implying racial gatekeeping.
959 - - Did not critically examine **non-White preferences** for their own race.
960 -
961 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
962 - - 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.
963 - - **No racial preference was criticized except when it protected White boundaries.**
964 -{{/expandable}}
965 -
966 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
967 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
968 - - Large dataset from real-world dating profiles.
969 - - Provides rare insight into **gendered patterns of racial preference**.
970 -
971 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
972 - - **Frames personal preference as political discrimination** when expressed by White users.
973 - - **Fails to control for cultural compatibility, attraction patterns, or religious values.**
974 - - **Double standard** in analysis — **non-White selectivity is ignored or justified.**
975 -
976 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
977 - - Should distinguish **racial animus from in-group preference**.
978 - - Include **psychological, aesthetic, and cultural compatibility data**.
979 - - Apply **equal critical lens to all racial groups**, not just Whites.
980 -{{/expandable}}
981 -
982 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
983 -- Reinforces how CRT-aligned research pathologizes **White in-group dating preferences**.
984 -- Supports the claim that **White intimacy boundaries are uniquely scrutinized** and politicized.
985 -- Demonstrates how even non-political behavior (e.g., dating) is racialized when it involves Whites.
986 -{{/expandable}}
987 -
988 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
989 -1. Study how **dating preferences vary by upbringing, media influence, and culture**, not just race.
990 -2. Analyze **racial preferences across all groups** with equal rigor and skepticism.
991 -3. Examine the **mental health impact of stigmatizing in-group preference** among Whites.
992 -{{/expandable}}
993 -
994 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
995 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.ssresearch.2009.04.004.pdf]]
996 -{{/expandable}}
997 -{{/expandable}}
998 -
999 -
1000 -{{expandable summary="Study: Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World"}}
1001 -**Source:** *Journal of European Psychoanalysis*
1002 -**Date of Publication:** *2009*
1003 -**Author(s):** *Kristen Fink* *Jewish*))
1004 -**Title:** *"Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World: Sexual relationships between black men and white women as a cause of decline"*
1005 -**DOI:** *Unavailable – Psychoanalytic essay publication*
1006 -**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sexuality, Psychoanalysis, Cultural Demoralization*
1007 -
1008 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1009 -1. **General Observations:**
1010 - - This is a **psychoanalytic essay**, not an empirical study.
1011 - - Uses **Freudian and Lacanian theory** to explore symbolic meanings of interracial sex.
1012 - - Frames **Black male–White female pairings** as psychologically disruptive to the White male ego and Western civilization.
1013 -
1014 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1015 - - Positions **Black men as symbolic rivals** to emasculated Western (White) men.
1016 - - **White women’s interracial attraction** is framed as rebellion or rejection of Western order.
1017 -
1018 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1019 - - The essay proposes that **sexual representation in media** is demoralizing to White culture.
1020 - - Uses **high theory language** to justify what is ultimately an anti-White cultural narrative.
1021 -{{/expandable}}
1022 -
1023 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1024 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1025 - - **Interracial sexual dynamics** are framed as central to **Western decline**.
1026 - - **White masculinity is portrayed as passive, obsolete, or neurotic** in contrast to hypermasculinized Blackness.
1027 -
1028 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1029 - - Suggests White men internalize emasculation through exposure to interracial symbolism.
1030 - - Sees **cultural loss of confidence** in White society as stemming from racial-sexual symbolism.
1031 -
1032 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1033 - - Analyzes media tropes (e.g., interracial porn, pop culture) through the lens of psychoanalytic guilt and transgression.
1034 - - Never critiques the **ideological project of glorifying Blackness at the expense of White identity**.
1035 -{{/expandable}}
1036 -
1037 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1038 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1039 - - Reveals how **elite academic disciplines like psychoanalysis** are used to mask anti-White narratives in esoteric jargon.
1040 - - Serves as **ideological evidence** of demoralization tactics embedded in cultural theory.
1041 -
1042 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1043 - - No empirical data, surveys, or statistical analysis — purely speculative.
1044 - - **Does not critique hypersexualization of Black men** or the dehumanizing aspects of the fetish.
1045 - - Assumes **White masculinity must passively accept its symbolic erasure** as psychoanalytically “natural.”
1046 -
1047 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1048 - - Include **perspectives from White men and women** on how these portrayals affect their psychological well-being.
1049 - - Disentangle psychoanalytic theory from **racial guilt ideology**.
1050 - - Explore **mutual respect-based frameworks** for interracial dynamics rather than ones rooted in humiliation or power symbolism.
1051 -{{/expandable}}
1052 -
1053 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1054 -- Illustrates how **race, sex, and culture are manipulated to undermine White self-perception**.
1055 -- Demonstrates how **academic elites frame White decline as psychologically necessary or deserved**.
1056 -- Provides ideological background for modern media trends that eroticize racial power imbalance.
1057 -{{/expandable}}
1058 -
1059 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1060 -1. Analyze how psychoanalytic language is used to **justify racial inversion in cultural dominance**.
1061 -2. Examine the **role of pornography in demoralization campaigns** targeting White men.
1062 -3. Explore how elite journals create **ideological cover for overt anti-White sentiment**.
1063 -{{/expandable}}
1064 -
1065 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1066 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.Fink_Black_Penis_Demoralization.pdf]]
1067 -{{/expandable}}
1068 -{{/expandable}}
1069 -
1070 -
1071 1071  {{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"}}
1072 1072  **Source:** *JAMA Network Open*
1073 1073  **Date of Publication:** *2020*
... ... @@ -1543,206 +1543,66 @@
1543 1543  
1544 1544  = Whiteness & White Guilt =
1545 1545  
1546 -{{expandable summary="Study: Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"}}
1547 -**Source:** *Psychological Science*
1548 -**Date of Publication:** *2014*
1549 -**Author(s):** *Caleb E. Lai, Anthony G. Greenwald, et al.*
1550 -**Title:** *"Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"*
1551 -**DOI:** [10.1177/0956797614535812](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535812)
1552 -**Subject Matter:** *Implicit Bias, Racial Psychology, Psychological Conditioning*
1553 -
1554 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1555 -1. **General Observations:**
1556 - - Tested **17 different interventions** across **6,321 participants**, all measured via IAT (Implicit Association Test).
1557 - - Focused exclusively on reducing **pro-White, anti-Black preferences** — no reciprocal testing on anti-White bias.
1558 -
1559 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1560 - - Educational and exposure-based interventions (e.g., multiculturalism, egalitarian messaging) failed to reduce bias significantly.
1561 - - Most effective short-term results came from **trauma-based or emotionally coercive interventions**.
1562 -
1563 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1564 - - 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.
1565 - - Effects of even the most extreme interventions **dissipated within 24–72 hours**, with no long-term behavioral change.
1566 -{{/expandable}}
1567 -
1568 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1569 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1570 - - The interventions that produced the most dramatic IAT changes used **emotionally graphic narratives** depicting Whites as violent aggressors and Blacks as saviors.
1571 - - Merely showing positive Black images or promoting egalitarian values had minimal effect on implicit associations.
1572 -
1573 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1574 - - 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.
1575 - - 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.
1576 -
1577 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1578 - - 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.
1579 - - The study was **cited by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)** to justify DEI-aligned policy recommendations.
1580 -{{/expandable}}
1581 -
1582 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1583 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1584 - - Large sample size and systematic comparison across diverse intervention types.
1585 - - Clearly shows that **implicit preference is resilient** and not easily changed by education or exposure alone.
1586 -
1587 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1588 - - The most “effective” methods **relied on emotional manipulation, not persuasion or evidence**.
1589 - - Assumes **natural in-group preference is pathological** when expressed by White subjects but makes no effort to test other groups.
1590 - - **Zero attention to pro-Black or anti-White bias** — only White attitudes are pathologized.
1591 -
1592 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1593 - - Test the **psychological harm** and ethical implications of using graphic racial trauma to coerce attitude change.
1594 - - Include interventions that **strengthen ingroup empathy** without demonizing other groups.
1595 - - Disaggregate bias by **class, region, and individual experience**, rather than racially reducing all bias to “Whiteness.”
1596 -{{/expandable}}
1597 -
1598 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1599 -- Provides direct evidence that **DEI-style implicit bias training** is based on emotionally abusive and **anti-White psychological framing**.
1600 -- Shows how **social science selectively targets Whites for attitude correction**, often using fictionalized racial trauma scenarios.
1601 -- Demonstrates that even extreme interventions **fail to achieve long-term change**, undermining the scientific justification for such policies.
1602 -{{/expandable}}
1603 -
1604 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1605 -1. Investigate **implicit bias training outcomes** in real-world institutional settings.
1606 -2. Study **the ethical limits of psychological reprogramming** in DEI policies.
1607 -3. Explore **natural ingroup preference across all races** using morally neutral frameworks.
1608 -{{/expandable}}
1609 -
1610 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1611 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:lai2014.pdf]]
1612 -{{/expandable}}
1613 -{{/expandable}}
1614 -
1615 -
1616 -{{expandable summary="Study: School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education"}}
1617 -**Source:** *Social Science Research Network (SSRN)*
1618 -**Date of Publication:** *2020*
1619 -**Author(s):** *Eric Kaufmann, David Goldberg*
1620 -**Title:** *"School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education"*
1621 -**DOI:** [10.2139/ssrn.3730517](https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3730517)
1622 -**Subject Matter:** *K–12 Education, CRT, Indoctrination, Teacher Training*
1623 -
1624 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1625 -1. **General Observations:**
1626 - - Surveyed **over 800 educators** and analyzed **curricula, training materials, and administrator communications**.
1627 - - Found that **CSJ ideology is deeply embedded in public school systems**, including charter and magnet schools.
1628 -
1629 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1630 - - Teachers reported being trained to believe **Whiteness = privilege + harm**, not just historical context.
1631 - - Administrators disproportionately **disciplined or suppressed dissenting White teachers or parents**.
1632 -
1633 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1634 - - **Majority of educators fear retribution** if they question CSJ orthodoxy.
1635 - - **Curriculum mandates racial self-critique** primarily for White students, often starting in elementary grades.
1636 -{{/expandable}}
1637 -
1638 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1639 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1640 - - CSJ ideology **functions as an implicit worldview**, not a neutral teaching tool.
1641 - - “Equity” in practice means **dismantling of perceived White dominance**, often through emotional manipulation of students.
1642 -
1643 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1644 - - White students and teachers report **feeling targeted or dehumanized** in diversity sessions.
1645 - - Minority students were often **placed in victim-centric identity frameworks**, reinforcing grievance politics.
1646 -
1647 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1648 - - In several documented districts, **student activities included “unlearning Whiteness” workshops**.
1649 - - One district mandated that teachers **“de-center White perspectives”** in all classroom subjects.
1650 -{{/expandable}}
1651 -
1652 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1653 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1654 - - One of the few empirical studies documenting **systemic ideological bias in education**.
1655 - - Strong evidentiary base drawn from **firsthand educator testimony** and training materials.
1656 -
1657 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1658 - - Study is based on **self-reported perceptions**, though many are substantiated with examples.
1659 - - Focus is primarily U.S.-centric; international parallels not explored.
1660 -
1661 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1662 - - Future studies could **quantify the academic and emotional impact** on White students.
1663 - - Comparative analysis with **non-CSJ schools** (e.g., classical models) would clarify causal impact.
1664 -{{/expandable}}
1665 -
1666 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1667 -- Documents how **CRT-aligned ideology disproportionately targets White students and teachers**.
1668 -- Confirms that **school choice fails to protect against ideological indoctrination** when CSJ is systemic.
1669 -- Supports the need for **explicitly anti-indoctrination educational frameworks** grounded in neutrality and merit.
1670 -{{/expandable}}
1671 -
1672 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1673 -1. Investigate **legal protections for students against compelled ideological speech**.
1674 -2. Study **alternatives to CSJ pedagogy**, such as classical liberal education or civic humanism.
1675 -3. Examine **psychological outcomes** of guilt-based racial framing among White children.
1676 -{{/expandable}}
1677 -
1678 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1679 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:11.Goldberg_Kaufmann_CSJ_Education_Impact.pdf]]
1680 -{{/expandable}}
1681 -{{/expandable}}
1682 -
1683 -
1684 1684  {{expandable summary="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}}
1685 -**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1686 -**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1687 -**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1688 -**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1689 -**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1690 -**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*
1691 1691  
1692 1692  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1693 1693  1. **General Observations:**
1694 - - Based on **47 athlete interviews**, cherry-picked from non-revenue Division I sports.
1695 - - 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**.
1696 1696  
1697 1697  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1698 - - Attributes **White participation** in certain sports to "systemic racism", ignoring **self-selection, geography, and cultural affinity**.
1699 - - 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.
1700 1700  
1701 1701  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1702 - - White athletes are portrayed as **ignorant of their privilege**, a claim drawn entirely from CRT frameworks rather than behavior or outcome.
1703 - - **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.
1704 1704  {{/expandable}}
1705 1705  
1706 1706  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1707 1707  1. **Primary Observations:**
1708 - - Frames **normal demographic patterns** (e.g., majority-White rosters in tennis or rowing) as "institutional whiteness".
1709 - - **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.
1710 1710  
1711 1711  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1712 - - White athletes are criticized for **lacking racial awareness**, reinforcing the moral framing of **Whiteness as inherently problematic**.
1713 - - **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.
1714 1714  
1715 1715  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1716 - - Argues that college sports **reinforce racial hierarchy** without ever showing how White athletes benefit more than Black athletes.
1717 - - 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**.
1718 1718  {{/expandable}}
1719 1719  
1720 1720  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1721 1721  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1722 - - Useful as a clear example of **how CRT ideologues weaponize demography** to frame White majority spaces as inherently suspect.
1723 - - 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.
1724 1724  
1725 1725  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1726 - - **Excludes revenue sports**, where Black athletes dominate by numbers, prestige, and compensation.
1727 - - **Fails to explain** how team composition emerges from voluntary participation, geography, or subcultural identity.
1728 - - 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.
1729 1729  
1730 1730  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1731 - - Include **White athlete perspectives** without pre-framing them as racially naive or complicit.
1732 - - **Compare all sports**, including those where Black athletes thrive and lead.
1733 - - 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**.
1734 1734  {{/expandable}}
1735 1735  
1736 1736  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1737 -- Demonstrates how **DEI-aligned research reframes benign patterns** as oppressive when White majorities are involved.
1738 -- Illustrates **anti-White academic framing** in environments where no institutional barrier exists.
1739 -- 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**.
1740 1740  {{/expandable}}
1741 1741  
1742 1742  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1743 -1. Investigate **racial self-sorting and cultural affiliation** in athletic participation.
1744 -2. Compare **media framing of White-majority vs. Black-majority sports**.
1745 -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**.
1746 1746  {{/expandable}}
1747 1747  
1748 1748  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
... ... @@ -1750,70 +1750,66 @@
1750 1750  {{/expandable}}
1751 1751  {{/expandable}}
1752 1752  
1753 -
1754 1754  {{expandable summary="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
1755 -**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1756 -**Date of Publication:** *2016*
1757 -**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*
1758 1758  **Title:** *"Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs About Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites"*
1759 -**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1760 -**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*
1761 1761  
1762 1762  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1763 1763  1. **General Observations:**
1764 - - Analyzed responses from **222 white medical students and residents**.
1765 - - Investigated belief in **false biological differences between Black and White people**.
1766 - - 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.
1767 1767  
1768 1768  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1769 - - **50% of participants endorsed at least one false belief** (e.g., Black people have thicker skin or less sensitive nerve endings).
1770 - - 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**.
1771 1771  
1772 1772  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1773 - - Bias was **most prominent among first-year students**, diminishing slightly with experience.
1774 - - 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**.
1775 1775  {{/expandable}}
1776 1776  
1777 1777  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1778 1778  1. **Primary Observations:**
1779 - - False biological beliefs were **strongly correlated with racial disparity** in pain assessment.
1780 - - 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**.
1781 1781  
1782 1782  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1783 - - Medical students with **no false beliefs showed no treatment bias**.
1784 - - 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.
1785 1785  
1786 1786  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1787 - - Fictional vignettes demonstrated that **misinformation about biology**, not systemic malice, led to unequal care.
1788 - - 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**.
1789 1789  {{/expandable}}
1790 1790  
1791 1791  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1792 1792  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1793 - - Provides valuable insight into **how medical myths can affect judgment**.
1794 - - 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.
1795 1795  
1796 1796  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1797 - - Fails to examine **bias affecting White patients**, including under-treatment of opioid dependence or mental health.
1798 - - Only focuses on one direction of disparity, treating **White patients as a control** rather than a population worthy of study.
1799 - - **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**.
1800 1800  
1801 1801  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1802 - - Include **comparison groups for all races**, not just a binary Black–White framework.
1803 - - Investigate **systemic neglect of poor rural White populations**, especially in Appalachia and the Midwest.
1804 - - 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**.
1805 1805  {{/expandable}}
1806 1806  
1807 1807  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1808 -- Shows how **DEI-aligned narratives exploit limited findings** to vilify White professionals.
1809 -- Provides an example of a **legitimate medical education issue being repackaged as “racial bias.”**
1810 -- 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**.
1811 1811  {{/expandable}}
1812 1812  
1813 1813  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1814 -1. Study whether **DEI training reduces false beliefs** or simply **induces White guilt**.
1815 -2. Investigate **biases against White rural patients**, especially regarding **opioid or pain management stigma**.
1816 -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**.
1817 1817  {{/expandable}}
1818 1818  
1819 1819  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
... ... @@ -1821,7 +1821,6 @@
1821 1821  {{/expandable}}
1822 1822  {{/expandable}}
1823 1823  
1824 -
1825 1825  {{expandable summary="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}}
1826 1826  **Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1827 1827  **Date of Publication:** *2015*
... ... @@ -1890,75 +1890,72 @@
1890 1890  {{/expandable}}
1891 1891  
1892 1892  {{expandable summary="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"}}
1893 -**Source:** *Urban Studies*
1894 -**Date of Publication:** *2023*
1895 -**Author(s):** *Nina Glick Schiller, Jens Schneider, Ayşe Çağlar*
1896 -**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1897 -**DOI:** [10.1177/00420980231170057](https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231170057)
1898 -**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*
1899 1899  
1900 1900  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1901 1901  1. **General Observations:**
1902 - - Based on interviews with **White European residents** in three major European cities.
1903 - - 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.
1904 1904  
1905 1905  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1906 - - Interviewees were **overwhelmingly framed as obstacles** to multicultural harmony.
1907 - - 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.
1908 1908  
1909 1909  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1910 - - Claims that even positive civic participation by Whites may **“reinforce white privilege.”**
1911 - - 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.
1912 1912  {{/expandable}}
1913 1913  
1914 1914  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1915 1915  1. **Primary Observations:**
1916 - - Argues that White natives, by simply existing and having a historical presence, **“shape urban inequality.”**
1917 - - 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.
1918 1918  
1919 1919  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1920 - - Critiques White residents for seeking **cultural familiarity or demographic continuity.**
1921 - - 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**.
1922 1922  
1923 1923  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1924 - - Interviews frame **normal concerns about safety, schooling, or housing** as coded “racism.
1925 - - 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**.
1926 1926  {{/expandable}}
1927 1927  
1928 1928  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1929 1929  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1930 - - Reveals how **social scientists increasingly treat Whiteness itself as a problem.**
1931 - - 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.
1932 1932  
1933 1933  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1934 - - **Completely ignores migrant-driven displacement** of working-class Whites.
1935 - - Makes **no attempt to understand White residents sympathetically**, only as barriers.
1936 - - 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**.
1937 1937  
1938 1938  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1939 - - Include **White perspectives without presuming guilt or fragility.**
1940 - - Disaggregate “White” by **class, locality, or experience** — not treat as a monolith.
1941 - - 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**.
1942 1942  {{/expandable}}
1943 1943  
1944 1944  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1945 -- Demonstrates how **academic literature increasingly stigmatizes White presence** in urban life.
1946 -- Shows how **“diversity” is defined as the absence or silence of native populations.**
1947 -- 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**.
1948 1948  {{/expandable}}
1949 1949  
1950 1950  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1951 -1. Study the **psychological impact of demographic displacement** on native European populations.
1952 -2. Examine **rising crime and social fragmentation** in superdiverse” zones.
1953 -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**.
1954 1954  {{/expandable}}
1955 1955  
1956 1956  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1957 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_00420980231170057.pdf]]
1389 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]
1958 1958  {{/expandable}}
1959 1959  {{/expandable}}
1960 1960  
1961 -
1962 1962  = Media =
1963 1963  
1964 1964  {{expandable summary="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic"}}
... ... @@ -2163,235 +2163,107 @@
2163 2163  {{/expandable}}
2164 2164  
2165 2165  {{expandable summary="Study: White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years"}}
2166 -Source: Journal of Advertising Research
2167 -Date of Publication: 2022
2168 -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
2169 2169  Title: "White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years: A Meta-Analysis"
2170 -DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2022-028
2171 -Subject Matter: Advertising Trends, Racial Representation, Cultural Shifts
1601 +DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2307505121
1602 +Subject Matter: Advertising, Race, Consumer Behavior, Meta-Analysis
2172 2172  
2173 2173  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2174 2174  
2175 -**General Observations:**
1606 +Study Scale:
2176 2176  
2177 -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).
2178 2178  
2179 -Sample included mostly White U.S. participants, with consistent tracking of their preferences.
1610 +Covers the period 1956–2022.
2180 2180  
2181 -**Subgroup Analysis:**
1612 +Cohens d Effect Sizes (Model-Free):
2182 2182  
2183 -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.
2184 2184  
2185 -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).
2186 2186  
2187 -**Other Significant Data Points:**
1618 +Regression Findings:
2188 2188  
2189 -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).
2190 2190  
2191 -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.
2192 2192  {{/expandable}}
2193 2193  
2194 2194  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2195 2195  
2196 -**Primary Observations:**
1629 +Primary Observations:
2197 2197  
2198 -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.
2199 2199  
2200 -These preferences held across product types, media formats, and ad genres.
1633 +White viewers’ preferences have shifted significantly over time toward favoring Black endorsers.
2201 2201  
2202 -**Subgroup Trends:**
1635 +Temporal Trends:
2203 2203  
2204 -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.
2205 2205  
2206 -The largest positive attitudinal shift occurred between 1995–2020, coinciding with major DEI and cultural programming trends.
1639 +Moderator Effects:
2207 2207  
2208 -**Specific Case Analysis:**
1641 +Low anti-Black prejudice and low White ethnic identification correlate with greater White preference for Black endorsers.
2209 2209  
2210 -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.
2211 2211  
2212 -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).
2213 2213  {{/expandable}}
2214 2214  
2215 2215  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2216 2216  
2217 -**Strengths of the Study:**
1652 +Strengths of the Study:
2218 2218  
2219 -Large-scale dataset across decades provides a clear empirical view of long-term trends.
1654 +Longest-running meta-analysis on interracial preferences in advertising.
2220 2220  
2221 -Useful as a benchmark of how White American preferences have evolved under sociocultural pressure.
1656 +Includes multilevel modeling and 21 meta-analytic covariates.
2222 2222  
2223 -**Limitations of the Study:**
1658 +Accounts for both perceiver and societal context, and controls for publication bias.
2224 2224  
2225 -Fails to ask whether increasing diversity is consumer-driven or culturally imposed.
1660 +Limitations:
2226 2226  
2227 -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.
2228 2228  
2229 -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).
2230 2230  
2231 -**Suggestions for Improvement:**
1666 +Social desirability bias may affect lab-based responses.
2232 2232  
2233 -Include non-White viewer reactions to all-White or traditional American imagery for balance.
1668 +Suggestions for Improvement:
2234 2234  
2235 -Test whether consumers notice racial proportions or experience fatigue from overcorrection.
1670 +Include field experiments and more representative samples (age, class, ideology).
2236 2236  
2237 -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.
2238 2238  {{/expandable}}
2239 2239  
2240 2240  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2241 2241  
2242 -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.
2243 2243  
2244 -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.
2245 2245  
2246 -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.
2247 2247  {{/expandable}}
2248 2248  
2249 2249  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2250 2250  
2251 -Study how overrepresentation of minorities in advertising compares to actual demographics.
1688 +Expand analysis to Latino, Asian, and multiracial models in media.
2252 2252  
2253 -Examine whether consumers feel represented or alienated by identity-based marketing.
1690 +Study real-world (non-lab) consumer reactions to racial diversity in advertising.
2254 2254  
2255 -Investigate the psychological and cultural impact of long-term demographic displacement in national advertising.
2256 -{{/expandable}}
1692 +Investigate how economic anxiety influences racial preferences in other domains (e.g., hiring, education).
2257 2257  
2258 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2259 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.2501_JAR-2022-028.pdf]]
1694 +Explore how virtual influencers or AI-generated models affect racial perceptions.
2260 2260  {{/expandable}}
2261 -{{/expandable}}
2262 2262  
2263 -{{expandable summary="Study: Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"}}
2264 -**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2265 -**Date of Publication:** *2020*
2266 -**Author(s):** *John A. Banas, Lauren L. Miller, David A. Braddock, Sun Kyong Lee*
2267 -**Title:** *"Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"*
2268 -**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqz032](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz032)
2269 -**Subject Matter:** *Media Psychology, Prejudice Reduction, Intergroup Relations*
2270 -
2271 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2272 -1. **General Observations:**
2273 - - Aggregated **71 studies involving 27,000+ participants**.
2274 - - Focused on how **media portrayals of out-groups (primarily minorities)** affect attitudes among dominant in-groups (i.e., Whites).
2275 -
2276 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
2277 - - **Fictional entertainment** had stronger effects than news.
2278 - - **Positive portrayals of minorities** correlated with significant reductions in “prejudice”.
2279 -
2280 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
2281 - - Effects were stronger when minority characters were portrayed as **warm, competent, and morally relatable**.
2282 - - Contact was more effective when it mimicked **face-to-face friendship narratives**.
2283 -{{/expandable}}
2284 -
2285 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2286 -1. **Primary Observations:**
2287 - - Media is a **powerful tool for shaping racial attitudes**, capable of reducing “prejudice” without real-world contact.
2288 - - **Repeated exposure** to positive portrayals of minorities led to increased acceptance and reduced negative bias.
2289 -
2290 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2291 - - **White participants** were the primary targets of reconditioning.
2292 - - Minority participants were not studied in terms of **prejudice against Whites**.
2293 -
2294 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2295 - - “Parasocial” relationships with minority characters (TV/movie exposure) had comparable psychological effects to actual friendships.
2296 - - Media framing functioned as a **top-down mechanism for social engineering**, not just passive reflection of society.
2297 -{{/expandable}}
2298 -
2299 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2300 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2301 - - High-quality quantitative meta-analysis with clear design and robust statistical handling.
2302 - - Acknowledges **media’s ability to alter long-held social beliefs** without physical contact.
2303 -
2304 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2305 - - Only defines “prejudice” as **negative attitudes from Whites toward minorities** — no exploration of anti-White media narratives or bias.
2306 - - Ignores the effects of **overexposure to minority portrayals** on cultural alienation or backlash.
2307 - - Assumes **assimilation into DEI norms is inherently positive**, and any reluctance to accept them is “prejudice”.
2308 -
2309 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2310 - - Study reciprocal dynamics — how **minority media portrayals impact attitudes toward Whites**.
2311 - - Investigate whether constant valorization of minorities leads to **resentment, guilt, or political disengagement** among White viewers.
2312 - - Analyze **media saturation effects**, especially in multicultural propaganda and corporate DEI messaging.
2313 -{{/expandable}}
2314 -
2315 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2316 -- Provides **direct evidence** that media is being used to **reshape racial attitudes** through emotional, parasocial contact.
2317 -- Reinforces concern that **“tolerance” is engineered via asymmetric emotional exposure**, not organic consensus.
2318 -- Useful for documenting how **Whiteness is often treated as a bias to be corrected**, not a culture to be respected.
2319 -{{/expandable}}
2320 -
2321 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2322 -1. Investigate **reverse parasocial effects** — how negative portrayals of White men affect self-perception and mental health.
2323 -2. Study how **mass entertainment normalizes demographic shifts** and silences native concerns.
2324 -3. Compare effects of **Western vs. non-Western media systems** in promoting diversity narratives.
2325 -{{/expandable}}
2326 -
2327 2327  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2328 -[[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]]
2329 2329  {{/expandable}}
2330 2330  {{/expandable}}
2331 -
2332 -
2333 -{{expandable summary="Study: Cultural Voyeurism – A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"}}
2334 -**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2335 -**Date of Publication:** *2018*
2336 -**Author(s):** *Osei Appiah*
2337 -**Title:** *"Cultural Voyeurism: A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"*
2338 -**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
2339 -**Subject Matter:** *Intergroup contact, racial stereotypes, media, identity formation*
2340 -
2341 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2342 -1. **No empirical dataset** — this is a theoretical framework paper, not a quantitative study.
2343 -2. **Heavily cites prior empirical work**, including:
2344 - - Czopp & Monteith (2006) on “complimentary stereotypes”
2345 - - Armstrong et al. (1992), Entman & Rojecki (2000) on media distortion of race
2346 - - Pettigrew et al. (2011) on intergroup contact
2347 -
2348 -3. **Statistical implications:** Repeatedly emphasizes the role of media in shaping racial beliefs when direct interracial contact is absent.
2349 -{{/expandable}}
2350 -
2351 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2352 -1. **Primary Observations:**
2353 - - Defines *cultural voyeurism* as the process of using media to observe and learn about other racial/ethnic groups.
2354 - - Claims it can both reinforce stereotypes and reduce prejudice depending on context.
2355 - - Suggests that Whites’ fascination with Black culture (e.g., hip-hop, athleticism) is a driver of empathy and improved race relations.
2356 -
2357 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2358 - - White youth are singled out as cultural voyeurs increasingly emulating Black identity for social cachet (“coolness”).
2359 - - Positive media portrayals of Blacks (e.g., in entertainment) said to reduce racial bias.
2360 -
2361 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2362 - - No case study provided, but mentions “Duck Dynasty” and “hip-hop culture” as stereotyped White/Black identity constructs respectively.
2363 -{{/expandable}}
2364 -
2365 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2366 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2367 - - Recognizes media’s dual role in shaping intergroup perception.
2368 - - Accurately captures the obsession with racial “coolness” as a social phenomenon.
2369 -
2370 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2371 - - Frames White identification with Black culture as inherently progressive, ignoring issues of **anti-White displacement**.
2372 - - Treats *positive stereotypes of minorities* (e.g., athleticism, musicality) as meaningful substitutes for structural reality.
2373 - - Lacks any meaningful inquiry into *reverse cultural voyeurism* (i.e., non-Whites voyeuristically consuming and appropriating White identity or values).
2374 -
2375 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2376 - - Should confront whether “cultural voyeurism” ultimately erodes group boundaries and majority cultural integrity.
2377 - - Needs empirical validation of claims.
2378 - - Avoids uncomfortable realities about how White identity is increasingly stigmatized in media — which undermines genuine empathy or parity.
2379 -{{/expandable}}
2380 -
2381 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2382 -- Helps explain how **media conditioning** primes young Whites to *admire, emulate, and eventually submit* to Black cultural dominance.
2383 -- 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.
2384 -- Useful in chapters/sections covering cultural appropriation *in reverse* — not by Whites, but **of Whiteness** by outsiders for critique and exploitation.
2385 -{{/expandable}}
2386 -
2387 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2388 -1. Are there longitudinal studies showing cultural voyeurism weakening in-group preference among Whites?
2389 -2. Does this phenomenon correspond to decreased fertility, civic participation, or political alignment with group interest?
2390 -3. How do non-Western societies handle voyeuristic consumption of majority culture — do they permit or punish it?
2391 -{{/expandable}}
2392 -
2393 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2394 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:Cultural Voyeurism A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Intera.pdf]]
2395 -{{/expandable}}
2396 -{{/expandable}}
2397 -
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