Changes for page Research at a Glance


on 2025/06/19 19:12
Summary
Details
- Page properties
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -XWiki. XWikiGuest1 +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* ... ... @@ -1543,144 +1543,6 @@ 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 1685 **Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education* 1686 1686 **Date of Publication:** *2019* ... ... @@ -1813,15 +1813,9 @@ 1813 1813 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} 1814 1814 1. Study whether **DEI training reduces false beliefs** or simply **induces White guilt**. 1815 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**. 1817 -{{/expandable}} 1257 +3. Conduct **clinical outcome studies**, not self-reported vignettes, to test **real-world disparities**. 1818 1818 1819 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} 1820 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1516047113.pdf]] 1821 -{{/expandable}} 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* ... ... @@ -2259,139 +2259,3 @@ 2259 2259 [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.2501_JAR-2022-028.pdf]] 2260 2260 {{/expandable}} 2261 2261 {{/expandable}} 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 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} 2328 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf]] 2329 -{{/expandable}} 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