... |
... |
@@ -647,440 +647,7 @@ |
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 |
|
-{{expandable summary=" |
720 |
|
- |
721 |
|
- |
722 |
|
-Study: “A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"}} |
723 |
|
-**Source:** *Sociology of Race and Ethnicity* |
724 |
|
-**Date of Publication:** *2020* |
725 |
|
-**Author(s):** *Andrew R. Flores and Ariela Schachter* |
726 |
|
-**Title:** *"“A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"* |
727 |
|
-**DOI:** [10.1177/2332649219871232](https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649219871232) |
728 |
|
-**Subject Matter:** *Interracial Dating, Racial Stereotyping, Online Behavior* |
729 |
|
- |
730 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
731 |
|
-1. **General Observations:** |
732 |
|
- - Used **experimental survey data** from a nationally representative sample (N = 1,070). |
733 |
|
- - Participants evaluated hypothetical dating profiles of White individuals who expressed interest in Black, Latino, or Asian partners. |
734 |
|
- |
735 |
|
-2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
736 |
|
- - **White men interested in Black women** were rated as **less cultured, more aggressive, and lower class**. |
737 |
|
- - White women interested in Black men were **viewed as less intelligent and more promiscuous**. |
738 |
|
- - **Interest in Asian partners** did not carry the same negative stereotypes; in some cases, it improved perceived desirability. |
739 |
|
- |
740 |
|
-3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
741 |
|
- - **Latino partners** were seen more neutrally, though men who dated them were seen as more “dominant.” |
742 |
|
- - Across the board, **Whites who dated within their race were viewed most favorably**. |
743 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
744 |
|
- |
745 |
|
-{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
746 |
|
-1. **Primary Observations:** |
747 |
|
- - Interracial daters—especially those dating Black individuals—are **subject to negative assumptions** about intelligence, class, and morality. |
748 |
|
- - Stereotypes persist even in **hypothetical online contexts**, showing deep cultural associations. |
749 |
|
- |
750 |
|
-2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
751 |
|
- - White men who prefer Black women face **masculinity-linked stigma**, often tied to “urban” or “ghetto” tropes. |
752 |
|
- - White women dating Black men are **framed as sexually deviant or socially undesirable**, particularly by other Whites. |
753 |
|
- |
754 |
|
-3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
755 |
|
- - The most negatively perceived pairing was **White woman/Black man**, reinforcing long-standing cultural anxieties. |
756 |
|
- - Respondents judged interracial daters not just by race but by **projected cultural assimilation or rejection**. |
757 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
758 |
|
- |
759 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
760 |
|
-1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
761 |
|
- - Reveals **latent racial boundaries** in contemporary dating preferences. |
762 |
|
- - Uses **controlled experimental design** to expose socially unacceptable but real biases. |
763 |
|
- |
764 |
|
-2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
765 |
|
- - Relies on **self-reported reactions to profiles**, not real-world dating behavior. |
766 |
|
- - **Fails to analyze anti-White framing** in the assumptions about White participants who prefer other races. |
767 |
|
- - Assumes stigma is irrational without investigating **rational in-group preference or cultural concerns**. |
768 |
|
- |
769 |
|
-3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
770 |
|
- - Include **reverse scenarios** (e.g., Black or Latino individuals expressing preference for Whites). |
771 |
|
- - Examine how **media portrayal of interracial couples** influences perception and desirability. |
772 |
|
- - Account for **class and education overlaps** that could explain perceived traits. |
773 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
774 |
|
- |
775 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
776 |
|
-- Highlights how **Whites who date outside their race—particularly with Blacks—are pathologized**, even within their own community. |
777 |
|
-- Shows that **Whiteness is penalized** when paired with non-Whiteness, reinforcing social costs for racial mixing. |
778 |
|
-- Useful for understanding **how stigma around interracial relationships is unevenly applied**, with anti-White moral overtones. |
779 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
780 |
|
- |
781 |
|
-{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
782 |
|
-1. Study how **in-group dating preferences differ across races** and are morally interpreted. |
783 |
|
-2. Investigate how **class and education** affect perceptions of interracial relationships. |
784 |
|
-3. Examine whether **Whites are disproportionately judged** when deviating from group norms vs. other races. |
785 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
786 |
|
- |
787 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
788 |
|
-[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_2332649219871232.pdf]] |
789 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
790 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
791 |
|
- |
792 |
|
-{{expandable summary=" |
793 |
|
- |
794 |
|
- |
795 |
|
-Study: E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"}} |
796 |
|
-**Source:** *National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)* |
797 |
|
-**Date of Publication:** *2024* |
798 |
|
-**Author(s):** *Umit Gurun, Daniel Solomon* |
799 |
|
-**Title:** *"E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"* |
800 |
|
-**DOI:** [10.3386/w31978](https://doi.org/10.3386/w31978) |
801 |
|
-**Subject Matter:** *Demography, Social Cohesion, Diversity Effects on Fertility* |
802 |
|
- |
803 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
804 |
|
-1. **General Observations:** |
805 |
|
- - Used large-scale demographic, economic, and census data across **1,800+ U.S. counties**. |
806 |
|
- - Found a **strong negative correlation between local diversity and White fertility rates**. |
807 |
|
- - Quantified impact: a 1 SD increase in ethnic diversity leads to a **4–6% drop in birth rates**. |
808 |
|
- |
809 |
|
-2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
810 |
|
- - Decline most pronounced among **non-Hispanic Whites**, especially in suburban and semi-urban areas. |
811 |
|
- - **No significant birth rate drop observed among Hispanic or Black populations** under the same conditions. |
812 |
|
- |
813 |
|
-3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
814 |
|
- - Diversity increases linked to **reduced marriage rates**, especially among Whites. |
815 |
|
- - Authors suggest **“erosion of social cohesion and trust”** as mediating factors. |
816 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
817 |
|
- |
818 |
|
-{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
819 |
|
-1. **Primary Observations:** |
820 |
|
- - Ethnic diversity significantly **reduces total fertility rates**, independent of economic or educational variables. |
821 |
|
- - **Social fragmentation** and perceived dissimilarity drive fertility suppression. |
822 |
|
- |
823 |
|
-2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
824 |
|
- - White populations respond to diversity with lower family formation. |
825 |
|
- - **Cultural distance** and loss of shared norms are possible causes. |
826 |
|
- |
827 |
|
-3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
828 |
|
- - High-diversity metro areas saw steepest declines in White birth rates over the past two decades. |
829 |
|
- - Study challenges mainstream assumptions that diversity has neutral or positive demographic effects. |
830 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
831 |
|
- |
832 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
833 |
|
-1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
834 |
|
- - Offers **quantitative backing for claims long treated as taboo** in public discourse. |
835 |
|
- - Applies **robust statistical methods** and cross-validates with multiple data sources. |
836 |
|
- |
837 |
|
-2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
838 |
|
- - Avoids discussing **racial preference, ethnic tension, or cultural conflict** explicitly. |
839 |
|
- - Authors stop short of acknowledging **the demographic replacement implication** of sustained low White fertility. |
840 |
|
- |
841 |
|
-3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
842 |
|
- - Include **qualitative data on reasons for delayed or avoided parenthood** among Whites in diverse areas. |
843 |
|
- - Examine **media messaging and policy environments** that could accelerate these trends. |
844 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
845 |
|
- |
846 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
847 |
|
-- Confirms a **central premise** of the White demographic decline thesis. |
848 |
|
-- Demonstrates that **diversity is not neutral** but **functionally suppressive to White reproduction**. |
849 |
|
-- Offers solid **empirical support against the utopian assumptions** of multiculturalism. |
850 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
851 |
|
- |
852 |
|
-{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
853 |
|
-1. Examine **fertility effects of diversity in European countries** experiencing immigration-driven change. |
854 |
|
-2. Study **how school demographics and crime perception** affect reproductive decision-making. |
855 |
|
-3. Explore **policy frameworks that support demographic stability for founding populations**. |
856 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
857 |
|
- |
858 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
859 |
|
-[[Download Full Study>>attach:12.Gurun_Solomon_Diversity_BirthRates.pdf]] |
860 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
861 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
862 |
|
- |
863 |
|
-{{expandable summary=" |
864 |
|
- |
865 |
|
- |
866 |
|
-Study: The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"}} |
867 |
|
-**Source:** *Porn Studies* |
868 |
|
-**Date of Publication:** *2015* |
869 |
|
-**Author(s):** *Noah Tsika* |
870 |
|
-**Title:** *"The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"* |
871 |
|
-**DOI:** [10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389](https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389) |
872 |
|
-**Subject Matter:** *Pornography Studies, Race and Sexuality, Cultural Critique* |
873 |
|
- |
874 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
875 |
|
-1. **General Observations:** |
876 |
|
- - This is a **qualitative content analysis** of gonzo pornography, particularly interracial porn involving Black men and White women. |
877 |
|
- - The author reviews **select films, not a dataset**, using them to extrapolate broad cultural claims about race and sexuality. |
878 |
|
- |
879 |
|
-2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
880 |
|
- - Claims that **interracial porn “others” and dehumanizes Black men**, yet selectively **frames Black male sexual aggression as liberatory**. |
881 |
|
- - The author accuses White male consumers of **fetishizing Black men** as both threats and tools for their own “colonial guilt.” |
882 |
|
- |
883 |
|
-3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
884 |
|
- - No empirical evidence, just interpretive readings of scenes and film dialogue. |
885 |
|
- - Repeatedly criticizes **White directors and actors** as complicit in perpetuating “White supremacy through porn.” |
886 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
887 |
|
- |
888 |
|
-{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
889 |
|
-1. **Primary Observations:** |
890 |
|
- - Argues that **gonzo interracial porn functions as racial propaganda**, reinforcing White guilt while commodifying Black masculinity. |
891 |
|
- - Portrays White women as willing participants in a fantasy of racial domination that allegedly “liberates” Black men. |
892 |
|
- |
893 |
|
-2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
894 |
|
- - White male viewers are pathologized as both sexually repressed and voyeuristically complicit in anti-Black racism. |
895 |
|
- - Black male performers are framed as both victims of racial commodification and **agents of resistance through hypersexuality**. |
896 |
|
- |
897 |
|
-3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
898 |
|
- - 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. |
899 |
|
- - The narrative treats **racially charged sexual violence as deconstructive**, only when it reverses traditional racial dynamics. |
900 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
901 |
|
- |
902 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
903 |
|
-1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
904 |
|
- - Useful in showcasing how **critical race theory invades even the most apolitical domains** (porn consumption) and turns them into race war battlegrounds. |
905 |
|
- - Offers insight into how **White heterosexuality is recoded as colonialism** in activist academia. |
906 |
|
- |
907 |
|
-2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
908 |
|
- - **No statistical basis**, relies entirely on biased interpretive analysis of fringe media. |
909 |
|
- - Presumes **intent and audience motivation** without surveys, viewership data, or cross-cultural comparison. |
910 |
|
- - Treats Black aggression as empowering and White sexuality as inherently oppressive — a double standard. |
911 |
|
- |
912 |
|
-3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
913 |
|
- - Include comparative data on how different racial groups are portrayed in pornography across genres. |
914 |
|
- - Analyze how **minority-run porn studios frame interracial themes** — not just White-directed media. |
915 |
|
- - Address how racial fetishization **harms all groups**, not just Black men. |
916 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
917 |
|
- |
918 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
919 |
|
-- Exemplifies how **racialized sexual narratives are reinterpreted to indict White identity**, even in consumer entertainment. |
920 |
|
-- Shows how **DEI and CRT frameworks are applied to pornographic material** to pathologize White maleness while sanctifying non-White hypermasculinity. |
921 |
|
-- Highlights the **academic bias that treats transgressive content as empowering when it serves anti-White narratives**. |
922 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
923 |
|
- |
924 |
|
-{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
925 |
|
-1. Study how **interracial porn narratives differ when produced by non-White vs. White directors**. |
926 |
|
-2. Examine **how racial power is portrayed in same-sex vs. heterosexual interracial porn**. |
927 |
|
-3. Investigate whether the **fetishization of Black masculinity fuels unrealistic expectations and destructive stereotypes** for both Black and White men. |
928 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
929 |
|
- |
930 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
931 |
|
-[[Download Full Study>>attach:Dinest - The White Man's Burden Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity.pdf]] |
932 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
933 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
934 |
|
- |
935 |
|
-{{expandable summary=" |
936 |
|
- |
937 |
|
- |
938 |
|
-Study: Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"}} |
939 |
|
-**Source:** *Social Science Research* |
940 |
|
-**Date of Publication:** *2009* |
941 |
|
-**Author(s):** *Cynthia Feliciano, Belinda Robnett, Golnaz Komaie* |
942 |
|
-**Title:** *"Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"* |
943 |
|
-**DOI:** [10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004) |
944 |
|
-**Subject Matter:** *Online Dating, Racial Preferences, CRT Framing of White Intimacy* |
945 |
|
- |
946 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
947 |
|
-1. **General Observations:** |
948 |
|
- - Based on data from **Love@aol.com**, analyzing **over 6,000 profiles** from California. |
949 |
|
- - The study investigated **racial preferences listed explicitly** in dating profiles. |
950 |
|
- |
951 |
|
-2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
952 |
|
- - **White women were least likely to express openness to interracial dating**, particularly with Black and Asian men. |
953 |
|
- - **White men also showed exclusion**, but were more open than White women. |
954 |
|
- |
955 |
|
-3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
956 |
|
- - The authors labeled preference for one’s own race as **“racial exclusion”**. |
957 |
|
- - Profiles by non-White users expressing same-race preferences were **not similarly problematized**. |
958 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
959 |
|
- |
960 |
|
-{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
961 |
|
-1. **Primary Observations:** |
962 |
|
- - **White in-group preference was framed as discriminatory**, regardless of intent or context. |
963 |
|
- - Dating preferences were interpreted as a **“reinforcement of racial hierarchies”**. |
964 |
|
- |
965 |
|
-2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
966 |
|
- - The study suggested **White women’s selectivity** stemmed from **cultural and structural advantages**, implying racial gatekeeping. |
967 |
|
- - Did not critically examine **non-White preferences** for their own race. |
968 |
|
- |
969 |
|
-3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
970 |
|
- - 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. |
971 |
|
- - **No racial preference was criticized except when it protected White boundaries.** |
972 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
973 |
|
- |
974 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
975 |
|
-1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
976 |
|
- - Large dataset from real-world dating profiles. |
977 |
|
- - Provides rare insight into **gendered patterns of racial preference**. |
978 |
|
- |
979 |
|
-2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
980 |
|
- - **Frames personal preference as political discrimination** when expressed by White users. |
981 |
|
- - **Fails to control for cultural compatibility, attraction patterns, or religious values.** |
982 |
|
- - **Double standard** in analysis — **non-White selectivity is ignored or justified.** |
983 |
|
- |
984 |
|
-3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
985 |
|
- - Should distinguish **racial animus from in-group preference**. |
986 |
|
- - Include **psychological, aesthetic, and cultural compatibility data**. |
987 |
|
- - Apply **equal critical lens to all racial groups**, not just Whites. |
988 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
989 |
|
- |
990 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
991 |
|
-- Reinforces how CRT-aligned research pathologizes **White in-group dating preferences**. |
992 |
|
-- Supports the claim that **White intimacy boundaries are uniquely scrutinized** and politicized. |
993 |
|
-- Demonstrates how even non-political behavior (e.g., dating) is racialized when it involves Whites. |
994 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
995 |
|
- |
996 |
|
-{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
997 |
|
-1. Study how **dating preferences vary by upbringing, media influence, and culture**, not just race. |
998 |
|
-2. Analyze **racial preferences across all groups** with equal rigor and skepticism. |
999 |
|
-3. Examine the **mental health impact of stigmatizing in-group preference** among Whites. |
1000 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1001 |
|
- |
1002 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
1003 |
|
-[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.ssresearch.2009.04.004.pdf]] |
1004 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1005 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1006 |
|
- |
1007 |
|
-{{expandable summary=" |
1008 |
|
- |
1009 |
|
- |
1010 |
|
-Study: Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World"}} |
1011 |
|
-**Source:** *Journal of European Psychoanalysis* |
1012 |
|
-**Date of Publication:** *2009* |
1013 |
|
-**Author(s):** *Kristen Fink* *Jewish*)) |
1014 |
|
-**Title:** *"Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World: Sexual relationships between black men and white women as a cause of decline"* |
1015 |
|
-**DOI:** *Unavailable – Psychoanalytic essay publication* |
1016 |
|
-**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sexuality, Psychoanalysis, Cultural Demoralization* |
1017 |
|
- |
1018 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
1019 |
|
-1. **General Observations:** |
1020 |
|
- - This is a **psychoanalytic essay**, not an empirical study. |
1021 |
|
- - Uses **Freudian and Lacanian theory** to explore symbolic meanings of interracial sex. |
1022 |
|
- - Frames **Black male–White female pairings** as psychologically disruptive to the White male ego and Western civilization. |
1023 |
|
- |
1024 |
|
-2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
1025 |
|
- - Positions **Black men as symbolic rivals** to emasculated Western (White) men. |
1026 |
|
- - **White women’s interracial attraction** is framed as rebellion or rejection of Western order. |
1027 |
|
- |
1028 |
|
-3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
1029 |
|
- - The essay proposes that **sexual representation in media** is demoralizing to White culture. |
1030 |
|
- - Uses **high theory language** to justify what is ultimately an anti-White cultural narrative. |
1031 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1032 |
|
- |
1033 |
|
-{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
1034 |
|
-1. **Primary Observations:** |
1035 |
|
- - **Interracial sexual dynamics** are framed as central to **Western decline**. |
1036 |
|
- - **White masculinity is portrayed as passive, obsolete, or neurotic** in contrast to hypermasculinized Blackness. |
1037 |
|
- |
1038 |
|
-2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
1039 |
|
- - Suggests White men internalize emasculation through exposure to interracial symbolism. |
1040 |
|
- - Sees **cultural loss of confidence** in White society as stemming from racial-sexual symbolism. |
1041 |
|
- |
1042 |
|
-3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
1043 |
|
- - Analyzes media tropes (e.g., interracial porn, pop culture) through the lens of psychoanalytic guilt and transgression. |
1044 |
|
- - Never critiques the **ideological project of glorifying Blackness at the expense of White identity**. |
1045 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1046 |
|
- |
1047 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
1048 |
|
-1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
1049 |
|
- - Reveals how **elite academic disciplines like psychoanalysis** are used to mask anti-White narratives in esoteric jargon. |
1050 |
|
- - Serves as **ideological evidence** of demoralization tactics embedded in cultural theory. |
1051 |
|
- |
1052 |
|
-2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
1053 |
|
- - No empirical data, surveys, or statistical analysis — purely speculative. |
1054 |
|
- - **Does not critique hypersexualization of Black men** or the dehumanizing aspects of the fetish. |
1055 |
|
- - Assumes **White masculinity must passively accept its symbolic erasure** as psychoanalytically “natural.” |
1056 |
|
- |
1057 |
|
-3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
1058 |
|
- - Include **perspectives from White men and women** on how these portrayals affect their psychological well-being. |
1059 |
|
- - Disentangle psychoanalytic theory from **racial guilt ideology**. |
1060 |
|
- - Explore **mutual respect-based frameworks** for interracial dynamics rather than ones rooted in humiliation or power symbolism. |
1061 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1062 |
|
- |
1063 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
1064 |
|
-- Illustrates how **race, sex, and culture are manipulated to undermine White self-perception**. |
1065 |
|
-- Demonstrates how **academic elites frame White decline as psychologically necessary or deserved**. |
1066 |
|
-- Provides ideological background for modern media trends that eroticize racial power imbalance. |
1067 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1068 |
|
- |
1069 |
|
-{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
1070 |
|
-1. Analyze how psychoanalytic language is used to **justify racial inversion in cultural dominance**. |
1071 |
|
-2. Examine the **role of pornography in demoralization campaigns** targeting White men. |
1072 |
|
-3. Explore how elite journals create **ideological cover for overt anti-White sentiment**. |
1073 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1074 |
|
- |
1075 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
1076 |
|
-[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.Fink_Black_Penis_Demoralization.pdf]] |
1077 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1078 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1079 |
|
- |
1080 |
|
-{{expandable summary=" |
1081 |
|
- |
1082 |
|
- |
1083 |
|
-Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"}} |
|
650 |
+{{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"}} |
1084 |
1084 |
**Source:** *JAMA Network Open* |
1085 |
1085 |
**Date of Publication:** *2020* |
1086 |
1086 |
**Author(s):** *Ueda P, Mercer CH, Ghaznavi C, Herbenick D.* |
... |
... |
@@ -1555,283 +1555,133 @@ |
1555 |
1555 |
|
1556 |
1556 |
= Whiteness & White Guilt = |
1557 |
1557 |
|
1558 |
|
-{{expandable summary="Study: Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"}} |
1559 |
|
-**Source:** *Psychological Science* |
1560 |
|
-**Date of Publication:** *2014* |
1561 |
|
-**Author(s):** *Caleb E. Lai, Anthony G. Greenwald, et al.* |
1562 |
|
-**Title:** *"Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"* |
1563 |
|
-**DOI:** [10.1177/0956797614535812](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535812) |
1564 |
|
-**Subject Matter:** *Implicit Bias, Racial Psychology, Psychological Conditioning* |
|
1125 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}} |
|
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* |
1565 |
1565 |
|
1566 |
1566 |
{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
1567 |
1567 |
1. **General Observations:** |
1568 |
|
- - Tested **17 different interventions** across **6,321 participants**, all measured via IAT (Implicit Association Test). |
1569 |
|
- - Focused exclusively on reducing **pro-White, anti-Black preferences** — no reciprocal testing on anti-White bias. |
|
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**. |
1570 |
1570 |
|
1571 |
1571 |
2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
1572 |
|
- - Educational and exposure-based interventions (e.g., multiculturalism, egalitarian messaging) failed to reduce bias significantly. |
1573 |
|
- - Most effective short-term results came from **trauma-based or emotionally coercive interventions**. |
|
1139 |
+ - **Predominantly white sports programs** reinforce racial hierarchies in college athletics. |
|
1140 |
+ - **Recruitment policies favor white athletes** from affluent, suburban backgrounds. |
1574 |
1574 |
|
1575 |
1575 |
3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
1576 |
|
- - 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. |
1577 |
|
- - Effects of even the most extreme interventions **dissipated within 24–72 hours**, with no long-term behavioral change. |
|
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. |
1578 |
1578 |
{{/expandable}} |
1579 |
1579 |
|
1580 |
1580 |
{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
1581 |
1581 |
1. **Primary Observations:** |
1582 |
|
- - The interventions that produced the most dramatic IAT changes used **emotionally graphic narratives** depicting Whites as violent aggressors and Blacks as saviors. |
1583 |
|
- - Merely showing positive Black images or promoting egalitarian values had minimal effect on implicit associations. |
|
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. |
1584 |
1584 |
|
1585 |
1585 |
2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
1586 |
|
- - 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. |
1587 |
|
- - 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. |
|
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. |
1588 |
1588 |
|
1589 |
1589 |
3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
1590 |
|
- - 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. |
1591 |
|
- - The study was **cited by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)** to justify DEI-aligned policy recommendations. |
|
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**. |
1592 |
1592 |
{{/expandable}} |
1593 |
1593 |
|
1594 |
1594 |
{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
1595 |
1595 |
1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
1596 |
|
- - Large sample size and systematic comparison across diverse intervention types. |
1597 |
|
- - Clearly shows that **implicit preference is resilient** and not easily changed by education or exposure alone. |
|
1163 |
+ - **Comprehensive qualitative analysis** of race in college sports. |
|
1164 |
+ - Examines **institutional conditions** that sustain racial disparities in athletics. |
1598 |
1598 |
|
1599 |
1599 |
2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
1600 |
|
- - The most “effective” methods **relied on emotional manipulation, not persuasion or evidence**. |
1601 |
|
- - Assumes **natural in-group preference is pathological** when expressed by White subjects but makes no effort to test other groups. |
1602 |
|
- - **Zero attention to pro-Black or anti-White bias** — only White attitudes are pathologized. |
|
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. |
1603 |
1603 |
|
1604 |
1604 |
3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
1605 |
|
- - Test the **psychological harm** and ethical implications of using graphic racial trauma to coerce attitude change. |
1606 |
|
- - Include interventions that **strengthen ingroup empathy** without demonizing other groups. |
1607 |
|
- - Disaggregate bias by **class, region, and individual experience**, rather than racially reducing all bias to “Whiteness.” |
|
1171 |
+ - Future research should **compare recruitment policies across different sports and divisions**. |
|
1172 |
+ - Investigate **how athletic scholarships contribute to racial inequities in higher education**. |
1608 |
1608 |
{{/expandable}} |
1609 |
1609 |
|
1610 |
1610 |
{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
1611 |
|
-- Provides direct evidence that **DEI-style implicit bias training** is based on emotionally abusive and **anti-White psychological framing**. |
1612 |
|
-- Shows how **social science selectively targets Whites for attitude correction**, often using fictionalized racial trauma scenarios. |
1613 |
|
-- Demonstrates that even extreme interventions **fail to achieve long-term change**, undermining the scientific justification for such policies. |
|
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**. |
1614 |
1614 |
{{/expandable}} |
1615 |
1615 |
|
1616 |
1616 |
{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
1617 |
|
-1. Investigate **implicit bias training outcomes** in real-world institutional settings. |
1618 |
|
-2. Study **the ethical limits of psychological reprogramming** in DEI policies. |
1619 |
|
-3. Explore **natural ingroup preference across all races** using morally neutral frameworks. |
|
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**. |
1620 |
1620 |
{{/expandable}} |
1621 |
1621 |
|
1622 |
1622 |
{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
1623 |
|
-[[Download Full Study>>attach:lai2014.pdf]] |
1624 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1625 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1626 |
|
- |
1627 |
|
-{{expandable summary=" |
1628 |
|
- |
1629 |
|
- |
1630 |
|
-Study: School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education"}} |
1631 |
|
-**Source:** *Social Science Research Network (SSRN)* |
1632 |
|
-**Date of Publication:** *2020* |
1633 |
|
-**Author(s):** *Eric Kaufmann, David Goldberg* |
1634 |
|
-**Title:** *"School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education"* |
1635 |
|
-**DOI:** [10.2139/ssrn.3730517](https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3730517) |
1636 |
|
-**Subject Matter:** *K–12 Education, CRT, Indoctrination, Teacher Training* |
1637 |
|
- |
1638 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
1639 |
|
-1. **General Observations:** |
1640 |
|
- - Surveyed **over 800 educators** and analyzed **curricula, training materials, and administrator communications**. |
1641 |
|
- - Found that **CSJ ideology is deeply embedded in public school systems**, including charter and magnet schools. |
1642 |
|
- |
1643 |
|
-2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
1644 |
|
- - Teachers reported being trained to believe **Whiteness = privilege + harm**, not just historical context. |
1645 |
|
- - Administrators disproportionately **disciplined or suppressed dissenting White teachers or parents**. |
1646 |
|
- |
1647 |
|
-3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
1648 |
|
- - **Majority of educators fear retribution** if they question CSJ orthodoxy. |
1649 |
|
- - **Curriculum mandates racial self-critique** primarily for White students, often starting in elementary grades. |
1650 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1651 |
|
- |
1652 |
|
-{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
1653 |
|
-1. **Primary Observations:** |
1654 |
|
- - CSJ ideology **functions as an implicit worldview**, not a neutral teaching tool. |
1655 |
|
- - “Equity” in practice means **dismantling of perceived White dominance**, often through emotional manipulation of students. |
1656 |
|
- |
1657 |
|
-2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
1658 |
|
- - White students and teachers report **feeling targeted or dehumanized** in diversity sessions. |
1659 |
|
- - Minority students were often **placed in victim-centric identity frameworks**, reinforcing grievance politics. |
1660 |
|
- |
1661 |
|
-3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
1662 |
|
- - In several documented districts, **student activities included “unlearning Whiteness” workshops**. |
1663 |
|
- - One district mandated that teachers **“de-center White perspectives”** in all classroom subjects. |
1664 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1665 |
|
- |
1666 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
1667 |
|
-1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
1668 |
|
- - One of the few empirical studies documenting **systemic ideological bias in education**. |
1669 |
|
- - Strong evidentiary base drawn from **firsthand educator testimony** and training materials. |
1670 |
|
- |
1671 |
|
-2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
1672 |
|
- - Study is based on **self-reported perceptions**, though many are substantiated with examples. |
1673 |
|
- - Focus is primarily U.S.-centric; international parallels not explored. |
1674 |
|
- |
1675 |
|
-3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
1676 |
|
- - Future studies could **quantify the academic and emotional impact** on White students. |
1677 |
|
- - Comparative analysis with **non-CSJ schools** (e.g., classical models) would clarify causal impact. |
1678 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1679 |
|
- |
1680 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
1681 |
|
-- Documents how **CRT-aligned ideology disproportionately targets White students and teachers**. |
1682 |
|
-- Confirms that **school choice fails to protect against ideological indoctrination** when CSJ is systemic. |
1683 |
|
-- Supports the need for **explicitly anti-indoctrination educational frameworks** grounded in neutrality and merit. |
1684 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1685 |
|
- |
1686 |
|
-{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
1687 |
|
-1. Investigate **legal protections for students against compelled ideological speech**. |
1688 |
|
-2. Study **alternatives to CSJ pedagogy**, such as classical liberal education or civic humanism. |
1689 |
|
-3. Examine **psychological outcomes** of guilt-based racial framing among White children. |
1690 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1691 |
|
- |
1692 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
1693 |
|
-[[Download Full Study>>attach:11.Goldberg_Kaufmann_CSJ_Education_Impact.pdf]] |
1694 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1695 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1696 |
|
- |
1697 |
|
-{{expandable summary=" |
1698 |
|
- |
1699 |
|
- |
1700 |
|
-Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}} |
1701 |
|
-**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education* |
1702 |
|
-**Date of Publication:** *2019* |
1703 |
|
-**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum* |
1704 |
|
-**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"* |
1705 |
|
-**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140) |
1706 |
|
-**Subject Matter:** *Critical Race Theory, Sports Sociology, Anti-White Institutional Framing* |
1707 |
|
- |
1708 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
1709 |
|
-1. **General Observations:** |
1710 |
|
- - Based on **47 athlete interviews**, cherry-picked from non-revenue Division I sports. |
1711 |
|
- - The study claims **“segregation”**, but presents no evidence of actual exclusion or policy bias — just demographic imbalance. |
1712 |
|
- |
1713 |
|
-2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
1714 |
|
- - Attributes **White participation** in certain sports to "systemic racism", ignoring **self-selection, geography, and cultural affinity**. |
1715 |
|
- - Claims White athletes are “protected” from race discussions — but never engages with **Black overrepresentation in revenue sports**. |
1716 |
|
- |
1717 |
|
-3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
1718 |
|
- - White athletes are portrayed as **ignorant of their privilege**, a claim drawn entirely from CRT frameworks rather than behavior or outcome. |
1719 |
|
- - **No empirical data** is offered on policy, scholarship distribution, or team selection criteria. |
1720 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1721 |
|
- |
1722 |
|
-{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
1723 |
|
-1. **Primary Observations:** |
1724 |
|
- - Frames **normal demographic patterns** (e.g., majority-White rosters in tennis or rowing) as "institutional whiteness". |
1725 |
|
- - **Ignores the structural dominance** of Black athletes in high-profile revenue sports like football and basketball. |
1726 |
|
- |
1727 |
|
-2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
1728 |
|
- - White athletes are criticized for **lacking racial awareness**, reinforcing the moral framing of **Whiteness as inherently problematic**. |
1729 |
|
- - **Cultural preference, individual merit, and athletic subculture** are all excluded from consideration. |
1730 |
|
- |
1731 |
|
-3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
1732 |
|
- - Argues that college sports **reinforce racial hierarchy** without ever showing how White athletes benefit more than Black athletes. |
1733 |
|
- - Offers **no comparative analysis** of scholarships, graduation rates, or media portrayal by race. |
1734 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1735 |
|
- |
1736 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
1737 |
|
-1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
1738 |
|
- - Useful as a clear example of **how CRT ideologues weaponize demography** to frame White majority spaces as inherently suspect. |
1739 |
|
- - Shows how **academic literature systematically avoids symmetrical analysis** when outcomes favor White participants. |
1740 |
|
- |
1741 |
|
-2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
1742 |
|
- - **Excludes revenue sports**, where Black athletes dominate by numbers, prestige, and compensation. |
1743 |
|
- - **Fails to explain** how team composition emerges from voluntary participation, geography, or subcultural identity. |
1744 |
|
- - Treats **racial imbalance as proof of racism**, bypassing merit, interest, or socioeconomic context. |
1745 |
|
- |
1746 |
|
-3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
1747 |
|
- - Include **White athlete perspectives** without pre-framing them as racially naive or complicit. |
1748 |
|
- - **Compare all sports**, including those where Black athletes thrive and lead. |
1749 |
|
- - Remove CRT framing and **evaluate outcomes empirically**, not ideologically. |
1750 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1751 |
|
- |
1752 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
1753 |
|
-- Demonstrates how **DEI-aligned research reframes benign patterns** as oppressive when White majorities are involved. |
1754 |
|
-- Illustrates **anti-White academic framing** in environments where no institutional barrier exists. |
1755 |
|
-- Provides a concrete example of how **CRT avoids acknowledging Black dominance in elite spaces** (revenue athletics). |
1756 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1757 |
|
- |
1758 |
|
-{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
1759 |
|
-1. Investigate **racial self-sorting and cultural affiliation** in athletic participation. |
1760 |
|
-2. Compare **media framing of White-majority vs. Black-majority sports**. |
1761 |
|
-3. Study **how CRT narratives distort athletic merit and demographic outcomes**. |
1762 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1763 |
|
- |
1764 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
1765 |
1765 |
[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1037_dhe0000140.pdf]] |
1766 |
1766 |
{{/expandable}} |
1767 |
1767 |
{{/expandable}} |
1768 |
1768 |
|
1769 |
|
-{{expandable summary=" |
1770 |
|
- |
1771 |
|
- |
1772 |
|
-Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}} |
1773 |
|
-**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)* |
1774 |
|
-**Date of Publication:** *2016* |
1775 |
|
-**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axt, M. Norman Oliver* |
|
1192 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}} |
|
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* |
1776 |
1776 |
**Title:** *"Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs About Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites"* |
1777 |
|
-**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113) |
1778 |
|
-**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* |
1779 |
1779 |
|
1780 |
1780 |
{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
1781 |
1781 |
1. **General Observations:** |
1782 |
|
- - Analyzed responses from **222 white medical students and residents**. |
1783 |
|
- - Investigated belief in **false biological differences between Black and White people**. |
1784 |
|
- - 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. |
1785 |
1785 |
|
1786 |
1786 |
2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
1787 |
|
- - **50% of participants endorsed at least one false belief** (e.g., Black people have thicker skin or less sensitive nerve endings). |
1788 |
|
- - 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**. |
1789 |
1789 |
|
1790 |
1790 |
3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
1791 |
|
- - Bias was **most prominent among first-year students**, diminishing slightly with experience. |
1792 |
|
- - 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**. |
1793 |
1793 |
{{/expandable}} |
1794 |
1794 |
|
1795 |
1795 |
{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
1796 |
1796 |
1. **Primary Observations:** |
1797 |
|
- - False biological beliefs were **strongly correlated with racial disparity** in pain assessment. |
1798 |
|
- - 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**. |
1799 |
1799 |
|
1800 |
1800 |
2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
1801 |
|
- - Medical students with **no false beliefs showed no treatment bias**. |
1802 |
|
- - 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. |
1803 |
1803 |
|
1804 |
1804 |
3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
1805 |
|
- - Fictional vignettes demonstrated that **misinformation about biology**, not systemic malice, led to unequal care. |
1806 |
|
- - 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**. |
1807 |
1807 |
{{/expandable}} |
1808 |
1808 |
|
1809 |
1809 |
{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
1810 |
1810 |
1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
1811 |
|
- - Provides valuable insight into **how medical myths can affect judgment**. |
1812 |
|
- - 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. |
1813 |
1813 |
|
1814 |
1814 |
2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
1815 |
|
- - Fails to examine **bias affecting White patients**, including under-treatment of opioid dependence or mental health. |
1816 |
|
- - Only focuses on one direction of disparity, treating **White patients as a control** rather than a population worthy of study. |
1817 |
|
- - **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**. |
1818 |
1818 |
|
1819 |
1819 |
3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
1820 |
|
- - Include **comparison groups for all races**, not just a binary Black–White framework. |
1821 |
|
- - Investigate **systemic neglect of poor rural White populations**, especially in Appalachia and the Midwest. |
1822 |
|
- - 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**. |
1823 |
1823 |
{{/expandable}} |
1824 |
1824 |
|
1825 |
1825 |
{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
1826 |
|
-- Shows how **DEI-aligned narratives exploit limited findings** to vilify White professionals. |
1827 |
|
-- Provides an example of a **legitimate medical education issue being repackaged as “racial bias.”** |
1828 |
|
-- 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**. |
1829 |
1829 |
{{/expandable}} |
1830 |
1830 |
|
1831 |
1831 |
{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
1832 |
|
-1. Study whether **DEI training reduces false beliefs** or simply **induces White guilt**. |
1833 |
|
-2. Investigate **biases against White rural patients**, especially regarding **opioid or pain management stigma**. |
1834 |
|
-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**. |
1835 |
1835 |
{{/expandable}} |
1836 |
1836 |
|
1837 |
1837 |
{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
... |
... |
@@ -1839,10 +1839,7 @@ |
1839 |
1839 |
{{/expandable}} |
1840 |
1840 |
{{/expandable}} |
1841 |
1841 |
|
1842 |
|
-{{expandable summary=" |
1843 |
|
- |
1844 |
|
- |
1845 |
|
-Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}} |
|
1259 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}} |
1846 |
1846 |
**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)* |
1847 |
1847 |
**Date of Publication:** *2015* |
1848 |
1848 |
**Author(s):** *Anne Case, Angus Deaton* |
... |
... |
@@ -1910,75 +1910,72 @@ |
1910 |
1910 |
{{/expandable}} |
1911 |
1911 |
|
1912 |
1912 |
{{expandable summary="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"}} |
1913 |
|
-**Source:** *Urban Studies* |
1914 |
|
-**Date of Publication:** *2023* |
1915 |
|
-**Author(s):** *Nina Glick Schiller, Jens Schneider, Ayşe Çağlar* |
1916 |
|
-**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"* |
1917 |
|
-**DOI:** [10.1177/00420980231170057](https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231170057) |
1918 |
|
-**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* |
1919 |
1919 |
|
1920 |
1920 |
{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
1921 |
1921 |
1. **General Observations:** |
1922 |
|
- - Based on interviews with **White European residents** in three major European cities. |
1923 |
|
- - 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. |
1924 |
1924 |
|
1925 |
1925 |
2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
1926 |
|
- - Interviewees were **overwhelmingly framed as obstacles** to multicultural harmony. |
1927 |
|
- - 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. |
1928 |
1928 |
|
1929 |
1929 |
3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
1930 |
|
- - Claims that even positive civic participation by Whites may **“reinforce white privilege.”** |
1931 |
|
- - 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. |
1932 |
1932 |
{{/expandable}} |
1933 |
1933 |
|
1934 |
1934 |
{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
1935 |
1935 |
1. **Primary Observations:** |
1936 |
|
- - Argues that White natives, by simply existing and having a historical presence, **“shape urban inequality.”** |
1937 |
|
- - 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. |
1938 |
1938 |
|
1939 |
1939 |
2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
1940 |
|
- - Critiques White residents for seeking **cultural familiarity or demographic continuity.** |
1941 |
|
- - 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**. |
1942 |
1942 |
|
1943 |
1943 |
3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
1944 |
|
- - Interviews frame **normal concerns about safety, schooling, or housing** as coded “racism.” |
1945 |
|
- - 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**. |
1946 |
1946 |
{{/expandable}} |
1947 |
1947 |
|
1948 |
1948 |
{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
1949 |
1949 |
1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
1950 |
|
- - Reveals how **social scientists increasingly treat Whiteness itself as a problem.** |
1951 |
|
- - 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. |
1952 |
1952 |
|
1953 |
1953 |
2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
1954 |
|
- - **Completely ignores migrant-driven displacement** of working-class Whites. |
1955 |
|
- - Makes **no attempt to understand White residents sympathetically**, only as barriers. |
1956 |
|
- - 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**. |
1957 |
1957 |
|
1958 |
1958 |
3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
1959 |
|
- - Include **White perspectives without presuming guilt or fragility.** |
1960 |
|
- - Disaggregate “White” by **class, locality, or experience** — not treat as a monolith. |
1961 |
|
- - 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**. |
1962 |
1962 |
{{/expandable}} |
1963 |
1963 |
|
1964 |
1964 |
{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
1965 |
|
-- Demonstrates how **academic literature increasingly stigmatizes White presence** in urban life. |
1966 |
|
-- Shows how **“diversity” is defined as the absence or silence of native populations.** |
1967 |
|
-- 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**. |
1968 |
1968 |
{{/expandable}} |
1969 |
1969 |
|
1970 |
1970 |
{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
1971 |
|
-1. Study the **psychological impact of demographic displacement** on native European populations. |
1972 |
|
-2. Examine **rising crime and social fragmentation** in “superdiverse” zones. |
1973 |
|
-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**. |
1974 |
1974 |
{{/expandable}} |
1975 |
1975 |
|
1976 |
1976 |
{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
1977 |
|
-[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_00420980231170057.pdf]] |
|
1389 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]] |
1978 |
1978 |
{{/expandable}} |
1979 |
1979 |
{{/expandable}} |
1980 |
1980 |
|
1981 |
|
- |
1982 |
1982 |
= Media = |
1983 |
1983 |
|
1984 |
1984 |
{{expandable summary="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic"}} |
... |
... |
@@ -2183,231 +2183,107 @@ |
2183 |
2183 |
{{/expandable}} |
2184 |
2184 |
|
2185 |
2185 |
{{expandable summary="Study: White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years"}} |
2186 |
|
-Source: Journal of Advertising Research |
2187 |
|
-Date of Publication: 2022 |
2188 |
|
-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 |
2189 |
2189 |
Title: "White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years: A Meta-Analysis" |
2190 |
|
-DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2022-028 |
2191 |
|
-Subject Matter: Advertising Trends, Racial Representation, Cultural Shifts |
|
1601 |
+DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2307505121 |
|
1602 |
+Subject Matter: Advertising, Race, Consumer Behavior, Meta-Analysis |
2192 |
2192 |
|
2193 |
2193 |
{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
2194 |
|
-**General Observations:** |
2195 |
2195 |
|
2196 |
|
-Meta-analysis of 74 studies conducted between 1955 and 2020 on racial representation in advertising. |
|
1606 |
+Study Scale: |
2197 |
2197 |
|
2198 |
|
-Sample included mostly White U.S. participants, with consistent tracking of their preferences. |
|
1608 |
+62 studies, 332 effect sizes, 10,186 participants (Black and White Americans). |
2199 |
2199 |
|
2200 |
|
-**Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
1610 |
+Covers the period 1956–2022. |
2201 |
2201 |
|
2202 |
|
-Found a steady increase in positive responses toward Black models/actors in ads by White viewers. |
|
1612 |
+Cohen’s d Effect Sizes (Model-Free): |
2203 |
2203 |
|
2204 |
|
-Recent decades show equal or greater preference for Black faces compared to White ones. |
|
1614 |
+Black viewers: d = 0.50 → strong, consistent ingroup preference for Black models. |
2205 |
2205 |
|
2206 |
|
-**Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
1616 |
+White viewers: d = –0.08 overall; pre-2000: d = –0.16 (ingroup); post-2000: d = +0.02 (outgroup leaning). |
2207 |
2207 |
|
2208 |
|
-Study frames this shift as a positive move toward diversity, ignoring implications for displaced White cultural representation. |
|
1618 |
+Regression Findings: |
2209 |
2209 |
|
2210 |
|
-No equivalent data was collected on Black or Hispanic attitudes toward White representation. |
2211 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
|
1620 |
+White viewers’ preference for Black models increases by ~0.0128 d/year since 1956 (p < 0.05). |
2212 |
2212 |
|
2213 |
|
-{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
2214 |
|
-**Primary Observations:** |
|
1622 |
+By 2022, White viewers showed positive directional preference for Black endorsers. |
2215 |
2215 |
|
2216 |
|
-White Americans have become increasingly receptive or favorable toward Black figures in advertising, even over timeframes of widespread cultural change. |
2217 |
|
- |
2218 |
|
-These preferences held across product types, media formats, and ad genres. |
2219 |
|
- |
2220 |
|
-**Subgroup Trends:** |
2221 |
|
- |
2222 |
|
-Studies from the 1960s–1980s showed preference for in-group racial representation, which has dropped sharply for Whites in recent decades. |
2223 |
|
- |
2224 |
|
-The largest positive attitudinal shift occurred between 1995–2020, coinciding with major DEI and cultural programming trends. |
2225 |
|
- |
2226 |
|
-**Specific Case Analysis:** |
2227 |
|
- |
2228 |
|
-The authors position this as “progress,” but offer no critical reflection on the effects of displacing White imagery from national advertising narratives. |
2229 |
|
- |
2230 |
|
-Completely omits consumer preference studies in countries outside the U.S., especially in more homogeneous nations. |
|
1624 |
+Black viewer preferences remained stable across the 66 years. |
2231 |
2231 |
{{/expandable}} |
2232 |
2232 |
|
2233 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
2234 |
|
-**Strengths of the Study:** |
|
1627 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
2235 |
2235 |
|
2236 |
|
-Large-scale dataset across decades provides a clear empirical view of long-term trends. |
|
1629 |
+Primary Observations: |
2237 |
2237 |
|
2238 |
|
-Useful as a benchmark of how White American preferences have evolved under sociocultural pressure. |
|
1631 |
+Ingroup favoritism is evident: Black viewers consistently prefer Black endorsers. |
2239 |
2239 |
|
2240 |
|
-**Limitations of the Study:** |
|
1633 |
+White viewers’ preferences have shifted significantly over time toward favoring Black endorsers. |
2241 |
2241 |
|
2242 |
|
-Fails to ask whether increasing diversity is consumer-driven or culturally imposed. |
|
1635 |
+Temporal Trends: |
2243 |
2243 |
|
2244 |
|
-Ignores the potential alienation or displacement of White cultural identity from mainstream advertising. |
|
1637 |
+Turning point: Around 2002–2003, White viewers began showing a positive (though small) preference for Black endorsers. |
2245 |
2245 |
|
2246 |
|
-Assumes “diverse equals better” without testing economic or emotional impact of those shifts. |
|
1639 |
+Moderator Effects: |
2247 |
2247 |
|
2248 |
|
-**Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
1641 |
+Low anti-Black prejudice and low White ethnic identification correlate with greater White preference for Black endorsers. |
2249 |
2249 |
|
2250 |
|
-Include non-White viewer reactions to all-White or traditional American imagery for balance. |
|
1643 |
+Economic hardship (e.g., high unemployment) slightly reduces White preference for Black endorsers. |
2251 |
2251 |
|
2252 |
|
-Test whether consumers notice racial proportions or experience fatigue from overcorrection. |
|
1645 |
+Identification Model: |
2253 |
2253 |
|
2254 |
|
-Explore regional or class-based variance among White viewers, not just aggregate averages. |
|
1647 |
+Preference changes are stronger when outcomes measure identification with endorsers (e.g., similarity, attractiveness). |
2255 |
2255 |
{{/expandable}} |
2256 |
2256 |
|
2257 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
2258 |
|
-Demonstrates how White cultural imagery has been steadily replaced or downplayed in the public sphere. |
|
1650 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
2259 |
2259 |
|
2260 |
|
-Useful for showing how marketing professionals and researchers frame White displacement as “progress.” |
|
1652 |
+Strengths of the Study: |
2261 |
2261 |
|
2262 |
|
-Empirically supports the decline of White in-group preference — possibly due to reeducation, guilt framing, or media saturation. |
2263 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
|
1654 |
+Longest-running meta-analysis on interracial preferences in advertising. |
2264 |
2264 |
|
2265 |
|
-{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
2266 |
|
-Study how overrepresentation of minorities in advertising compares to actual demographics. |
|
1656 |
+Includes multilevel modeling and 21 meta-analytic covariates. |
2267 |
2267 |
|
2268 |
|
-Examine whether consumers feel represented or alienated by identity-based marketing. |
|
1658 |
+Accounts for both perceiver and societal context, and controls for publication bias. |
2269 |
2269 |
|
2270 |
|
-Investigate the psychological and cultural impact of long-term demographic displacement in national advertising. |
2271 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
|
1660 |
+Limitations: |
2272 |
2272 |
|
2273 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
2274 |
|
-[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.2501_JAR-2022-028.pdf]] |
2275 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
2276 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
|
1662 |
+Only examines Black and White racial dynamics—doesn’t cover Hispanic, Asian, or multiracial groups. |
2277 |
2277 |
|
2278 |
|
-{{expandable summary="Study: Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"}} |
2279 |
|
-**Source:** *Journal of Communication* |
2280 |
|
-**Date of Publication:** *2020* |
2281 |
|
-**Author(s):** *John A. Banas, Lauren L. Miller, David A. Braddock, Sun Kyong Lee* |
2282 |
|
-**Title:** *"Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"* |
2283 |
|
-**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqz032](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz032) |
2284 |
|
-**Subject Matter:** *Media Psychology, Prejudice Reduction, Intergroup Relations* |
|
1664 |
+72% of effect sizes are from student samples (not fully generalizable). |
2285 |
2285 |
|
2286 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
2287 |
|
-1. **General Observations:** |
2288 |
|
- - Aggregated **71 studies involving 27,000+ participants**. |
2289 |
|
- - Focused on how **media portrayals of out-groups (primarily minorities)** affect attitudes among dominant in-groups (i.e., Whites). |
|
1666 |
+Social desirability bias may affect lab-based responses. |
2290 |
2290 |
|
2291 |
|
-2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
2292 |
|
- - **Fictional entertainment** had stronger effects than news. |
2293 |
|
- - **Positive portrayals of minorities** correlated with significant reductions in “prejudice”. |
|
1668 |
+Suggestions for Improvement: |
2294 |
2294 |
|
2295 |
|
-3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
2296 |
|
- - Effects were stronger when minority characters were portrayed as **warm, competent, and morally relatable**. |
2297 |
|
- - Contact was more effective when it mimicked **face-to-face friendship narratives**. |
2298 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
|
1670 |
+Include field experiments and more representative samples (age, class, ideology). |
2299 |
2299 |
|
2300 |
|
-{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
2301 |
|
-1. **Primary Observations:** |
2302 |
|
- - Media is a **powerful tool for shaping racial attitudes**, capable of reducing “prejudice” without real-world contact. |
2303 |
|
- - **Repeated exposure** to positive portrayals of minorities led to increased acceptance and reduced negative bias. |
|
1672 |
+Examine how Black models are portrayed, not just if they are shown. |
2304 |
2304 |
|
2305 |
|
-2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
2306 |
|
- - **White participants** were the primary targets of reconditioning. |
2307 |
|
- - Minority participants were not studied in terms of **prejudice against Whites**. |
2308 |
|
- |
2309 |
|
-3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
2310 |
|
- - “Parasocial” relationships with minority characters (TV/movie exposure) had comparable psychological effects to actual friendships. |
2311 |
|
- - Media framing functioned as a **top-down mechanism for social engineering**, not just passive reflection of society. |
|
1674 |
+Extend research to other racial groups and multiracial representations. |
2312 |
2312 |
{{/expandable}} |
2313 |
2313 |
|
2314 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
2315 |
|
-1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
2316 |
|
- - High-quality quantitative meta-analysis with clear design and robust statistical handling. |
2317 |
|
- - Acknowledges **media’s ability to alter long-held social beliefs** without physical contact. |
|
1677 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
2318 |
2318 |
|
2319 |
|
-2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
2320 |
|
- - Only defines “prejudice” as **negative attitudes from Whites toward minorities** — no exploration of anti-White media narratives or bias. |
2321 |
|
- - Ignores the effects of **overexposure to minority portrayals** on cultural alienation or backlash. |
2322 |
|
- - Assumes **assimilation into DEI norms is inherently positive**, and any reluctance to accept them is “prejudice”. |
|
1679 |
+Provides empirical support for the dynamic shift in White American attitudes over time. |
2323 |
2323 |
|
2324 |
|
-3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
2325 |
|
- - Study reciprocal dynamics — how **minority media portrayals impact attitudes toward Whites**. |
2326 |
|
- - Investigate whether constant valorization of minorities leads to **resentment, guilt, or political disengagement** among White viewers. |
2327 |
|
- - Analyze **media saturation effects**, especially in multicultural propaganda and corporate DEI messaging. |
2328 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
|
1681 |
+Directly informs discussions about media representation, consumer behavior, and racial identity. |
2329 |
2329 |
|
2330 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
2331 |
|
-- Provides **direct evidence** that media is being used to **reshape racial attitudes** through emotional, parasocial contact. |
2332 |
|
-- Reinforces concern that **“tolerance” is engineered via asymmetric emotional exposure**, not organic consensus. |
2333 |
|
-- Useful for documenting how **Whiteness is often treated as a bias to be corrected**, not a culture to be respected. |
|
1683 |
+Supports policy and commercial arguments for including more diverse models in advertising. |
2334 |
2334 |
{{/expandable}} |
2335 |
2335 |
|
2336 |
2336 |
{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
2337 |
|
-1. Investigate **reverse parasocial effects** — how negative portrayals of White men affect self-perception and mental health. |
2338 |
|
-2. Study how **mass entertainment normalizes demographic shifts** and silences native concerns. |
2339 |
|
-3. Compare effects of **Western vs. non-Western media systems** in promoting diversity narratives. |
2340 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
2341 |
2341 |
|
2342 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
2343 |
|
-[[Download Full Study>>attach:Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf]] |
2344 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
2345 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
|
1688 |
+Expand analysis to Latino, Asian, and multiracial models in media. |
2346 |
2346 |
|
2347 |
|
-{{expandable summary=" |
|
1690 |
+Study real-world (non-lab) consumer reactions to racial diversity in advertising. |
2348 |
2348 |
|
|
1692 |
+Investigate how economic anxiety influences racial preferences in other domains (e.g., hiring, education). |
2349 |
2349 |
|
2350 |
|
-Study: Cultural Voyeurism – A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"}} |
2351 |
|
-**Source:** *Journal of Communication* |
2352 |
|
-**Date of Publication:** *2018* |
2353 |
|
-**Author(s):** *Osei Appiah* |
2354 |
|
-**Title:** *"Cultural Voyeurism: A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"* |
2355 |
|
-**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021) |
2356 |
|
-**Subject Matter:** *Intergroup contact, racial stereotypes, media, identity formation* |
2357 |
|
- |
2358 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
2359 |
|
-1. **No empirical dataset** — this is a theoretical framework paper, not a quantitative study. |
2360 |
|
-2. **Heavily cites prior empirical work**, including: |
2361 |
|
- - Czopp & Monteith (2006) on “complimentary stereotypes” |
2362 |
|
- - Armstrong et al. (1992), Entman & Rojecki (2000) on media distortion of race |
2363 |
|
- - Pettigrew et al. (2011) on intergroup contact |
2364 |
|
- |
2365 |
|
-3. **Statistical implications:** Repeatedly emphasizes the role of media in shaping racial beliefs when direct interracial contact is absent. |
|
1694 |
+Explore how virtual influencers or AI-generated models affect racial perceptions. |
2366 |
2366 |
{{/expandable}} |
2367 |
2367 |
|
2368 |
|
-{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
2369 |
|
-1. **Primary Observations:** |
2370 |
|
- - Defines *cultural voyeurism* as the process of using media to observe and learn about other racial/ethnic groups. |
2371 |
|
- - Claims it can both reinforce stereotypes and reduce prejudice depending on context. |
2372 |
|
- - Suggests that Whites’ fascination with Black culture (e.g., hip-hop, athleticism) is a driver of empathy and improved race relations. |
2373 |
|
- |
2374 |
|
-2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
2375 |
|
- - White youth are singled out as cultural voyeurs increasingly emulating Black identity for social cachet (“coolness”). |
2376 |
|
- - Positive media portrayals of Blacks (e.g., in entertainment) said to reduce racial bias. |
2377 |
|
- |
2378 |
|
-3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
2379 |
|
- - No case study provided, but mentions “Duck Dynasty” and “hip-hop culture” as stereotyped White/Black identity constructs respectively. |
2380 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
2381 |
|
- |
2382 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
2383 |
|
-1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
2384 |
|
- - Recognizes media’s dual role in shaping intergroup perception. |
2385 |
|
- - Accurately captures the obsession with racial “coolness” as a social phenomenon. |
2386 |
|
- |
2387 |
|
-2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
2388 |
|
- - Frames White identification with Black culture as inherently progressive, ignoring issues of **anti-White displacement**. |
2389 |
|
- - Treats *positive stereotypes of minorities* (e.g., athleticism, musicality) as meaningful substitutes for structural reality. |
2390 |
|
- - Lacks any meaningful inquiry into *reverse cultural voyeurism* (i.e., non-Whites voyeuristically consuming and appropriating White identity or values). |
2391 |
|
- |
2392 |
|
-3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
2393 |
|
- - Should confront whether “cultural voyeurism” ultimately erodes group boundaries and majority cultural integrity. |
2394 |
|
- - Needs empirical validation of claims. |
2395 |
|
- - Avoids uncomfortable realities about how White identity is increasingly stigmatized in media — which undermines genuine empathy or parity. |
2396 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
2397 |
|
- |
2398 |
|
-{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
2399 |
|
-- Helps explain how **media conditioning** primes young Whites to *admire, emulate, and eventually submit* to Black cultural dominance. |
2400 |
|
-- 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. |
2401 |
|
-- Useful in chapters/sections covering cultural appropriation *in reverse* — not by Whites, but **of Whiteness** by outsiders for critique and exploitation. |
2402 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
2403 |
|
- |
2404 |
|
-{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
2405 |
|
-1. Are there longitudinal studies showing cultural voyeurism weakening in-group preference among Whites? |
2406 |
|
-2. Does this phenomenon correspond to decreased fertility, civic participation, or political alignment with group interest? |
2407 |
|
-3. How do non-Western societies handle voyeuristic consumption of majority culture — do they permit or punish it? |
2408 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
2409 |
|
- |
2410 |
2410 |
{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
2411 |
|
-[[Download Full Study>>attach:Cultural Voyeurism A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Intera.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]] |
2412 |
2412 |
{{/expandable}} |
2413 |
2413 |
{{/expandable}} |