0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

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

From version 67.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/03/16 02:59
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 81.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/03/16 06:49
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -11,144 +11,851 @@
11 11  - Use the **search function** (Ctrl + F or XWiki's built-in search) to quickly find specific topics or authors.
12 12  - If needed, you can export this page as **PDF or print-friendly format**, and all studies will automatically expand for readability.
13 13  
14 +
14 14  {{toc/}}
15 15  
17 +
16 16  == Research Studies Repository ==
17 17  
18 18  
19 -= Study: Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding =
20 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Click here to expand details"}}
21 -**Source:** Journal of Genetic Epidemiology
22 -**Date of Publication:** 2024-01-15
23 -**Author(s):** Smith et al.
24 -**Title:** "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies"
25 -**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235](https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235)
26 -**Subject Matter:** Genetics, Social Science
21 += Genetics =
27 27  
28 -**Tags:** `Genetics` `Race & Ethnicity` `Biomedical Research`
29 29  
30 -=== **Key Statistics** ===
24 +== Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History ==
31 31  
26 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History"}}
27 +**Source:** *Nature*
28 +**Date of Publication:** *2009*
29 +**Author(s):** *David Reich, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Alkes L. Price, Lalji Singh*
30 +**Title:** *"Reconstructing Indian Population History"*
31 +**DOI:** [10.1038/nature08365](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08365)
32 +**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Population History, South Asian Ancestry* 
33 +
34 +----
35 +
36 +## **Key Statistics**##
37 +
32 32  1. **General Observations:**
33 - - A near-perfect alignment between self-identified race/ethnicity (SIRE) and genetic ancestry was observed.
34 - - Misclassification rate: **0.14%**.
39 + - Study analyzed **132 individuals from 25 diverse Indian groups**.
40 + - Identified two major ancestral populations: **Ancestral North Indians (ANI)** and **Ancestral South Indians (ASI)**.
35 35  
36 36  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
37 - - Four groups analyzed: **White, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic**.
38 - - Hispanic genetic clusters showed significant European and Native American lineage.
43 + - ANI ancestry is closely related to **Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans**.
44 + - ASI ancestry is **genetically distinct from ANI and East Asians**.
39 39  
40 -=== **Findings** ===
46 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
47 + - ANI ancestry ranges from **39% to 71%** across Indian groups.
48 + - **Caste and linguistic differences** strongly correlate with genetic variation.
41 41  
42 -- Self-identified race strongly aligns with genetic ancestry.
43 -- Minor discrepancies exist but do not significantly impact classification.
50 +----
44 44  
45 -=== **Relevance to Subproject** ===
52 +## **Findings**##
46 46  
47 -- Reinforces the reliability of **self-reported racial identity** in genetic research.
48 -- Highlights **policy considerations** in biomedical studies.
54 +1. **Primary Observations:**
55 + - The genetic landscape of India has been shaped by **thousands of years of endogamy**.
56 + - Groups with **only ASI ancestry no longer exist** in mainland India.
57 +
58 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
59 + - **Higher ANI ancestry in upper-caste and Indo-European-speaking groups**.
60 + - **Andaman Islanders** are unique in having **ASI ancestry without ANI influence**.
61 +
62 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
63 + - **Founder effects** have maintained allele frequency differences among Indian groups.
64 + - Predicts **higher incidence of recessive diseases** due to historical genetic isolation.
65 +
66 +----
67 +
68 +## **Critique and Observations**##
69 +
70 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
71 + - **First large-scale genetic analysis** of Indian population history.
72 + - Introduces **new methods for ancestry estimation without direct ancestral reference groups**.
73 +
74 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
75 + - Limited **sample size relative to India's population diversity**.
76 + - Does not include **recent admixture events** post-colonial era.
77 +
78 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
79 + - Future research should **expand sampling across more Indian tribal groups**.
80 + - Use **whole-genome sequencing** for finer resolution of ancestry.
81 +
82 +----
83 +
84 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
85 +- Provides a **genetic basis for caste and linguistic diversity** in India.
86 +- Highlights **founder effects and genetic drift** shaping South Asian populations.
87 +- Supports research on **medical genetics and disease risk prediction** in Indian populations.##
88 +
89 +----
90 +
91 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
92 +
93 +1. Examine **genetic markers linked to disease susceptibility** in Indian subpopulations.
94 +2. Investigate the impact of **recent migration patterns on ANI-ASI ancestry distribution**.
95 +3. Study **gene flow between Indian populations and other global groups**.
96 +
97 +----
98 +
99 +## **Summary of Research Study**
100 +This study reconstructs **the genetic history of India**, revealing two ancestral populations—**ANI (related to West Eurasians) and ASI (distinctly South Asian)**. By analyzing **25 diverse Indian groups**, the researchers demonstrate how **historical endogamy and founder effects** have maintained genetic differentiation. The findings have **implications for medical genetics, population history, and the study of South Asian ancestry**.##
101 +
102 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
103 +
104 +----
105 +
106 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
107 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature08365.pdf]]##
49 49  {{/expand}}
50 50  
51 -{{expand title="Study: [Study Title] (Click to Expand)" expanded="false"}}
52 -**Source:** [Journal/Institution Name]
53 -**Date of Publication:** [Publication Date]
54 -**Author(s):** [Author(s) Name(s)]
55 -**Title:** "[Study Title]"
56 -**DOI:** [DOI or Link]
57 -**Subject Matter:** [Broad Research Area, e.g., Social Psychology, Public Policy, Behavioral Economics]
58 58  
59 ----
111 +== Study: The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations ==
60 60  
61 -## **Key Statistics**
113 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"}}
114 +**Source:** *Nature*
115 +**Date of Publication:** *2016*
116 +**Author(s):** *David Reich, Swapan Mallick, Heng Li, Mark Lipson, and others*
117 +**Title:** *"The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"*
118 +**DOI:** [10.1038/nature18964](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18964)
119 +**Subject Matter:** *Human Genetic Diversity, Population History, Evolutionary Genomics* 
120 +
121 +----
122 +
123 +## **Key Statistics**##
124 +
62 62  1. **General Observations:**
63 - - [Statistical finding or observation]
64 - - [Statistical finding or observation]
126 + - Analyzed **high-coverage genome sequences of 300 individuals from 142 populations**.
127 + - Included **many underrepresented and indigenous groups** from Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas.
65 65  
66 66  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
67 - - [Breakdown of findings by gender, race, or other subgroups]
130 + - Found **higher genetic diversity within African populations** compared to non-African groups.
131 + - Showed **Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry in non-African populations**, particularly in Oceania.
68 68  
69 69  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
70 - - [Any additional findings or significant statistics]
134 + - Identified **5.8 million base pairs absent from the human reference genome**.
135 + - Estimated that **mutations have accumulated 5% faster in non-Africans than in Africans**.
71 71  
72 ----
137 +----
73 73  
74 -## **Findings**
139 +## **Findings**##
140 +
75 75  1. **Primary Observations:**
76 - - [High-level findings or trends in the study]
142 + - **African populations harbor the greatest genetic diversity**, confirming an out-of-Africa dispersal model.
143 + - Indigenous Australians and New Guineans **share a common ancestral population with other non-Africans**.
77 77  
78 78  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
79 - - [Disparities or differences highlighted in the study]
146 + - **Lower heterozygosity in non-Africans** due to founder effects from migration bottlenecks.
147 + - **Denisovan ancestry in South Asians is higher than previously thought**.
80 80  
81 81  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
82 - - [Detailed explanation of any notable specific findings]
150 + - **Neanderthal ancestry is higher in East Asians than in Europeans**.
151 + - African hunter-gatherer groups show **deep population splits over 100,000 years ago**.
83 83  
84 ----
153 +----
85 85  
86 -## **Critique and Observations**
155 +## **Critique and Observations**##
156 +
87 87  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
88 - - [Examples: strong methodology, large dataset, etc.]
158 + - **Largest global genetic dataset** outside of the 1000 Genomes Project.
159 + - High sequencing depth allows **more accurate identification of genetic variants**.
89 89  
90 90  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
91 - - [Examples: data gaps, lack of upstream analysis, etc.]
162 + - **Limited sample sizes for some populations**, restricting generalizability.
163 + - Lacks ancient DNA comparisons, making it difficult to reconstruct deep ancestry fully.
92 92  
93 93  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
94 - - [Ideas for further research or addressing limitations]
166 + - Future studies should include **ancient genomes** to improve demographic modeling.
167 + - Expand research into **how genetic variation affects health outcomes** across populations.
95 95  
96 ----
169 +----
97 97  
98 98  ## **Relevance to Subproject**
99 -- [Explanation of how this study contributes to your subproject goals.]
100 -- [Any key arguments or findings that support or challenge your views.]
172 +- Provides **comprehensive data on human genetic diversity**, useful for **evolutionary studies**.
173 +- Supports research on **Neanderthal and Denisovan introgression** in modern human populations.
174 +- Enhances understanding of **genetic adaptation and disease susceptibility across groups**.##
101 101  
102 ----
176 +----
103 103  
104 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
105 -1. [Research questions or areas to investigate further.]
106 -2. [Potential studies or sources to complement this analysis.]
178 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
107 107  
108 ----
180 +1. Investigate **functional consequences of genetic variation in underrepresented populations**.
181 +2. Study **how selection pressures shaped genetic diversity across different environments**.
182 +3. Explore **medical applications of population-specific genetic markers**.
109 109  
184 +----
185 +
110 110  ## **Summary of Research Study**
111 -This study examines **[core research question or focus]**, providing insights into **[main subject area]**. The research utilized **[sample size and methodology]** to assess **[key variables or measured outcomes]**.
187 +This study presents **high-coverage genome sequences from 300 individuals across 142 populations**, offering **new insights into global genetic diversity and human evolution**. The findings highlight **deep African population splits, widespread archaic ancestry in non-Africans, and unique variants absent from the human reference genome**. The research enhances our understanding of **migration patterns, adaptation, and evolutionary history**.##
112 112  
113 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study's contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
189 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the studys contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
114 114  
115 ----
191 +----
116 116  
117 117  ## **📄 Download Full Study**
118 -{{velocity}}
119 -#set($doi = "[Insert DOI Here]")
120 -#set($filename = "${doi}.pdf")
121 -#if($xwiki.exists("attach:$filename"))
122 -[[Download>>attach:$filename]]
123 -#else
124 -{{html}}<span style="color: red; font-weight: bold;">🚨 PDF Not Available 🚨</span>{{/html}}
125 -#end
126 -{{/velocity}}
194 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature18964.pdf]]##
195 +{{/expand}}
127 127  
197 +
198 +== Study: Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies ==
199 +
200 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"}}
201 +**Source:** *Nature Genetics*
202 +**Date of Publication:** *2015*
203 +**Author(s):** *Tinca J. C. Polderman, Beben Benyamin, Christiaan A. de Leeuw, Patrick F. Sullivan, Arjen van Bochoven, Peter M. Visscher, Danielle Posthuma*
204 +**Title:** *"Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"*
205 +**DOI:** [10.1038/ng.328](https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.328)
206 +**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Heritability, Twin Studies, Behavioral Science* 
207 +
208 +----
209 +
210 +## **Key Statistics**##
211 +
212 +1. **General Observations:**
213 + - Analyzed **17,804 traits from 2,748 twin studies** published between **1958 and 2012**.
214 + - Included data from **14,558,903 twin pairs**, making it the largest meta-analysis on human heritability.
215 +
216 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
217 + - Found **49% average heritability** across all traits.
218 + - **69% of traits follow a simple additive genetic model**, meaning most variance is due to genes, not environment.
219 +
220 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
221 + - **Neurological, metabolic, and psychiatric traits** showed the highest heritability estimates.
222 + - Traits related to **social values and environmental interactions** had lower heritability estimates.
223 +
224 +----
225 +
226 +## **Findings**##
227 +
228 +1. **Primary Observations:**
229 + - Across all traits, genetic factors play a significant role in individual differences.
230 + - The study contradicts models that **overestimate environmental effects in behavioral and cognitive traits**.
231 +
232 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
233 + - **Eye and brain-related traits showed the highest heritability (70-80%)**.
234 + - **Shared environmental effects were negligible (<10%) for most traits**.
235 +
236 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
237 + - Twin correlations suggest **limited evidence for strong non-additive genetic influences**.
238 + - The study highlights **missing heritability in complex traits**, which genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have yet to fully explain.
239 +
240 +----
241 +
242 +## **Critique and Observations**##
243 +
244 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
245 + - **Largest-ever heritability meta-analysis**, covering nearly all published twin studies.
246 + - Provides a **comprehensive framework for understanding gene-environment contributions**.
247 +
248 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
249 + - **Underrepresentation of African, South American, and Asian twin cohorts**, limiting global generalizability.
250 + - Cannot **fully separate genetic influences from potential cultural/environmental confounders**.
251 +
252 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
253 + - Future research should use **whole-genome sequencing** for finer-grained heritability estimates.
254 + - **Incorporate non-Western populations** to assess global heritability trends.
255 +
256 +----
257 +
258 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
259 +- Establishes a **quantitative benchmark for heritability across human traits**.
260 +- Reinforces **genetic influence on cognitive, behavioral, and physical traits**.
261 +- Highlights the need for **genome-wide studies to identify missing heritability**.##
262 +
263 +----
264 +
265 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
266 +
267 +1. Investigate how **heritability estimates compare across different socioeconomic backgrounds**.
268 +2. Examine **gene-environment interactions in cognitive and psychiatric traits**.
269 +3. Explore **non-additive genetic effects on human traits using newer statistical models**.
270 +
271 +----
272 +
273 +## **Summary of Research Study**
274 +This study presents a **comprehensive meta-analysis of human trait heritability**, covering **over 50 years of twin research**. The findings confirm **genes play a predominant role in shaping human traits**, with an **average heritability of 49%** across all measured characteristics. The research offers **valuable insights into genetic and environmental influences**, guiding future gene-mapping efforts and behavioral genetics studies.##
275 +
276 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
277 +
278 +----
279 +
280 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
281 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_ng.328.pdf]]##
128 128  {{/expand}}
129 129  
130 -{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
131 131  
285 +== Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease ==
132 132  
133 -💥 If this works, we can move on to the next study! 🚀 Let me know how it looks!
287 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease"}}
288 +**Source:** *Nature Reviews Genetics*
289 +**Date of Publication:** *2002*
290 +**Author(s):** *Sarah A. Tishkoff, Scott M. Williams*
291 +**Title:** *"Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease"*
292 +**DOI:** [10.1038/nrg865](https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg865)
293 +**Subject Matter:** *Population Genetics, Human Evolution, Complex Diseases* 
134 134  
135 -I'll process the next study and populate the template accordingly. Let me extract the key details from the uploaded document now.
295 +----
136 136  
137 -Here's the structured summary for the next study:
297 +## **Key Statistics**##
138 138  
139 ----
299 +1. **General Observations:**
300 + - Africa harbors **the highest genetic diversity** of any region, making it key to understanding human evolution.
301 + - The study analyzes **genetic variation and linkage disequilibrium (LD) in African populations**.
140 140  
141 -{{expand title="Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018" expanded="false"}}
303 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
304 + - African populations exhibit **greater genetic differentiation compared to non-Africans**.
305 + - **Migration and admixture** have shaped modern African genomes over the past **100,000 years**.
306 +
307 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
308 + - The **effective population size (Ne) of Africans** is higher than that of non-African populations.
309 + - LD blocks are **shorter in African genomes**, suggesting more historical recombination events.
310 +
311 +----
312 +
313 +## **Findings**##
314 +
315 +1. **Primary Observations:**
316 + - African populations are the **most genetically diverse**, supporting the *Recent African Origin* hypothesis.
317 + - Genetic variation in African populations can **help fine-map complex disease genes**.
318 +
319 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
320 + - **West Africans exhibit higher genetic diversity** than East Africans due to differing migration patterns.
321 + - Populations such as **San hunter-gatherers show deep genetic divergence**.
322 +
323 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
324 + - Admixture in African Americans includes **West African and European genetic contributions**.
325 + - SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) diversity in African genomes **exceeds that of non-African groups**.
326 +
327 +----
328 +
329 +## **Critique and Observations**##
330 +
331 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
332 + - Provides **comprehensive genetic analysis** of diverse African populations.
333 + - Highlights **how genetic diversity impacts health disparities and disease risks**.
334 +
335 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
336 + - Many **African populations remain understudied**, limiting full understanding of diversity.
337 + - Focuses more on genetic variation than on **specific disease mechanisms**.
338 +
339 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
340 + - Expand research into **underrepresented African populations**.
341 + - Integrate **whole-genome sequencing for a more detailed evolutionary timeline**.
342 +
343 +----
344 +
345 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
346 +- Supports **genetic models of human evolution** and the **out-of-Africa hypothesis**.
347 +- Reinforces **Africa’s key role in disease gene mapping and precision medicine**.
348 +- Provides insight into **historical migration patterns and their genetic impact**.##
349 +
350 +----
351 +
352 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
353 +
354 +1. Investigate **genetic adaptations to local environments within Africa**.
355 +2. Study **the role of African genetic diversity in disease resistance**.
356 +3. Expand research on **how ancient migration patterns shaped modern genetic structure**.
357 +
358 +----
359 +
360 +## **Summary of Research Study**
361 +This study explores the **genetic diversity of African populations**, analyzing their role in **human evolution and complex disease research**. The findings highlight **Africa’s unique genetic landscape**, confirming it as the most genetically diverse continent. The research provides valuable insights into **how genetic variation influences disease susceptibility, evolution, and population structure**.##
362 +
363 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
364 +
365 +----
366 +
367 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
368 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nrg865MODERN.pdf]]##
369 +{{/expand}}
370 +
371 +
372 +== Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA ==
373 +
374 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA"}}
375 +**Source:** *bioRxiv Preprint*
376 +**Date of Publication:** *September 15, 2024*
377 +**Author(s):** *Ali Akbari, Alison R. Barton, Steven Gazal, Zheng Li, Mohammadreza Kariminejad, et al.*
378 +**Title:** *"Pervasive findings of directional selection realize the promise of ancient DNA to elucidate human adaptation"*
379 +**DOI:** [10.1101/2024.09.14.613021](https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.14.613021)
380 +**Subject Matter:** *Genomics, Evolutionary Biology, Natural Selection* 
381 +
382 +----
383 +
384 +## **Key Statistics**##
385 +
386 +1. **General Observations:**
387 + - Study analyzes **8,433 ancient individuals** from the past **14,000 years**.
388 + - Identifies **347 genome-wide significant loci** showing strong selection.
389 +
390 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
391 + - Examines **West Eurasian populations** and their genetic evolution.
392 + - Tracks **changes in allele frequencies over millennia**.
393 +
394 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
395 + - **10,000 years of directional selection** affected metabolic, immune, and cognitive traits.
396 + - **Strong selection signals** found for traits like **skin pigmentation, cognitive function, and immunity**.
397 +
398 +----
399 +
400 +## **Findings**##
401 +
402 +1. **Primary Observations:**
403 + - **Hundreds of alleles have been subject to directional selection** over recent millennia.
404 + - Traits like **immune function, metabolism, and cognitive performance** show strong selection.
405 +
406 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
407 + - Selection pressure on **energy storage genes** supports the **Thrifty Gene Hypothesis**.
408 + - **Cognitive performance-related alleles** have undergone selection, but their historical advantages remain unclear.
409 +
410 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
411 + - **Celiac disease risk allele** increased from **0% to 20%** in 4,000 years.
412 + - **Blood type B frequency rose from 0% to 8% in 6,000 years**.
413 + - **Tuberculosis risk allele** fluctuated from **2% to 9% over 3,000 years before declining**.
414 +
415 +----
416 +
417 +## **Critique and Observations**##
418 +
419 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
420 + - **Largest dataset to date** on natural selection in human ancient DNA.
421 + - Uses **direct allele frequency tracking instead of indirect measures**.
422 +
423 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
424 + - Findings **may not translate directly** to modern populations.
425 + - **Unclear whether observed selection pressures persist today**.
426 +
427 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
428 + - Expanding research to **other global populations** to assess universal trends.
429 + - Investigating **long-term evolutionary trade-offs of selected alleles**.
430 +
431 +----
432 +
433 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
434 +- Provides **direct evidence of long-term genetic adaptation** in human populations.
435 +- Supports theories on **polygenic selection shaping human cognition, metabolism, and immunity**.
436 +- Highlights **how past selection pressures may still influence modern health and disease prevalence**.##
437 +
438 +----
439 +
440 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
441 +
442 +1. Examine **selection patterns in non-European populations** for comparison.
443 +2. Investigate **how environmental and cultural shifts influenced genetic selection**.
444 +3. Explore **the genetic basis of traits linked to past and present-day human survival**.
445 +
446 +----
447 +
448 +## **Summary of Research Study**
449 +This study examines **how human genetic adaptation has unfolded over 14,000 years**, using a **large dataset of ancient DNA**. It highlights **strong selection on immune function, metabolism, and cognitive traits**, revealing **hundreds of loci affected by directional selection**. The findings emphasize **the power of ancient DNA in tracking human evolution and adaptation**.##
450 +
451 +----
452 +
453 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
454 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1101_2024.09.14.613021doi_.pdf]]##
455 +{{/expand}}
456 +
457 +
458 +== Study: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age ==
459 +
460 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"}}
461 +**Source:** *Twin Research and Human Genetics (Cambridge University Press)*
462 +**Date of Publication:** *2013*
463 +**Author(s):** *Thomas J. Bouchard Jr.*
464 +**Title:** *"The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"*
465 +**DOI:** [10.1017/thg.2013.54](https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2013.54)
466 +**Subject Matter:** *Intelligence, Heritability, Developmental Psychology* 
467 +
468 +----
469 +
470 +## **Key Statistics**##
471 +
472 +1. **General Observations:**
473 + - The study documents how the **heritability of IQ increases with age**, reaching an asymptote at **0.80 by adulthood**.
474 + - Analysis is based on **longitudinal twin and adoption studies**.
475 +
476 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
477 + - Shared environmental influence on IQ **declines with age**, reaching **0.10 in adulthood**.
478 + - Monozygotic twins show **increasing genetic similarity in IQ over time**, while dizygotic twins become **less concordant**.
479 +
480 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
481 + - Data from the **Louisville Longitudinal Twin Study and cross-national twin samples** support findings.
482 + - IQ stability over time is **influenced more by genetics than by shared environmental factors**.
483 +
484 +----
485 +
486 +## **Findings**##
487 +
488 +1. **Primary Observations:**
489 + - Intelligence heritability **strengthens throughout development**, contrary to early environmental models.
490 + - Shared environmental effects **decrease by late adolescence**, emphasizing **genetic influence in adulthood**.
491 +
492 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
493 + - Studies from **Scotland, Netherlands, and the US** show **consistent patterns of increasing heritability with age**.
494 + - Findings hold across **varied socio-economic and educational backgrounds**.
495 +
496 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
497 + - Longitudinal adoption studies show **declining impact of adoptive parental influence on IQ** as children age.
498 + - Cross-sectional twin data confirm **higher IQ correlations for monozygotic twins in adulthood**.
499 +
500 +----
501 +
502 +## **Critique and Observations**##
503 +
504 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
505 + - **Robust dataset covering multiple twin and adoption studies over decades**.
506 + - **Clear, replicable trend** demonstrating the increasing role of genetics in intelligence.
507 +
508 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
509 + - Findings apply primarily to **Western industrialized nations**, limiting generalizability.
510 + - **Lack of neurobiological mechanisms** explaining how genes express their influence over time.
511 +
512 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
513 + - Future research should investigate **gene-environment interactions in cognitive aging**.
514 + - Examine **heritability trends in non-Western populations** to determine cross-cultural consistency.
515 +
516 +----
517 +
518 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
519 +- Provides **strong evidence for the genetic basis of intelligence**.
520 +- Highlights the **diminishing role of shared environment in cognitive development**.
521 +- Supports research on **cognitive aging and heritability across the lifespan**.##
522 +
523 +----
524 +
525 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
526 +
527 +1. Investigate **neurogenetic pathways underlying IQ development**.
528 +2. Examine **how education and socioeconomic factors interact with genetic IQ influences**.
529 +3. Study **heritability trends in aging populations and cognitive decline**.
530 +
531 +----
532 +
533 +## **Summary of Research Study**
534 +This study documents **The Wilson Effect**, demonstrating how the **heritability of IQ increases throughout development**, reaching a plateau of **0.80 by adulthood**. The findings indicate that **shared environmental effects diminish with age**, while **genetic influences on intelligence strengthen**. Using **longitudinal twin and adoption data**, the research provides **strong empirical support for the increasing role of genetics in cognitive ability over time**.##
535 +
536 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
537 +
538 +----
539 +
540 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
541 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1017_thg.2013.54.pdf]]##
542 +{{/expand}}
543 +
544 +
545 +== Study: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications ==
546 +
547 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"}}
548 +**Source:** *Medical Hypotheses (Elsevier)*
549 +**Date of Publication:** *2010*
550 +**Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley*
551 +**Title:** *"Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"*
552 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046)
553 +**Subject Matter:** *Human Taxonomy, Evolutionary Biology, Anthropology* 
554 +
555 +----
556 +
557 +## **Key Statistics**##
558 +
559 +1. **General Observations:**
560 + - The study argues that **Homo sapiens is polytypic**, meaning it consists of multiple subspecies rather than a single monotypic species.
561 + - Examines **genetic diversity, morphological variation, and evolutionary lineage** in humans.
562 +
563 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
564 + - Discusses **four primary definitions of race/subspecies**: Essentialist, Taxonomic, Population-based, and Lineage-based.
565 + - Suggests that **human heterozygosity levels are comparable to species that are classified as polytypic**.
566 +
567 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
568 + - The study evaluates **FST values (genetic differentiation measure)** and argues that human genetic differentiation is comparable to that of recognized subspecies in other species.
569 + - Considers **phylogenetic species concepts** in defining human variation.
570 +
571 +----
572 +
573 +## **Findings**##
574 +
575 +1. **Primary Observations:**
576 + - Proposes that **modern human populations meet biological criteria for subspecies classification**.
577 + - Highlights **medical and evolutionary implications** of human taxonomic diversity.
578 +
579 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
580 + - Discusses **how race concepts evolved over time** in biological sciences.
581 + - Compares **human diversity with that of other primates** such as chimpanzees and gorillas.
582 +
583 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
584 + - Evaluates how **genetic markers correlate with population structure**.
585 + - Addresses the **controversy over race classification in modern anthropology**.
586 +
587 +----
588 +
589 +## **Critique and Observations**##
590 +
591 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
592 + - Uses **comparative species analysis** to assess human classification.
593 + - Provides a **biological perspective** on the race concept, moving beyond social constructivism arguments.
594 +
595 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
596 + - Controversial topic with **strong opposing views in anthropology and genetics**.
597 + - **Relies on broad genetic trends**, but does not analyze individual-level genetic variation in depth.
598 +
599 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
600 + - Further research should **incorporate whole-genome studies** to refine subspecies classifications.
601 + - Investigate **how admixture affects taxonomic classification over time**.
602 +
603 +----
604 +
605 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
606 +- Contributes to discussions on **evolutionary taxonomy and species classification**.
607 +- Provides evidence on **genetic differentiation among human populations**.
608 +- Highlights **historical and contemporary scientific debates on race and human variation**.##
609 +
610 +----
611 +
612 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
613 +
614 +1. Examine **FST values in modern and ancient human populations**.
615 +2. Investigate how **adaptive evolution influences population differentiation**.
616 +3. Explore **the impact of genetic diversity on medical treatments and disease susceptibility**.
617 +
618 +----
619 +
620 +## **Summary of Research Study**
621 +This study evaluates **whether Homo sapiens should be classified as a polytypic species**, analyzing **genetic diversity, evolutionary lineage, and morphological variation**. Using comparative analysis with other primates and mammals, the research suggests that **human populations meet biological criteria for subspecies classification**, with implications for **evolutionary biology, anthropology, and medicine**.##
622 +
623 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
624 +
625 +----
626 +
627 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
628 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.mehy.2009.07.046.pdf]]##
629 +{{/expand}}
630 +
631 +
632 +== Study: Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media ==
633 +
634 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"}}
635 +**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
636 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
637 +**Author(s):** *Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, Thomas R. Coyle*
638 +**Title:** *"Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"*
639 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406)
640 +**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Intelligence Research, Expert Analysis* 
641 +
642 +----
643 +
644 +## **Key Statistics**##
645 +
646 +1. **General Observations:**
647 + - Survey of **102 experts** on intelligence research and public discourse.
648 + - Evaluated experts' backgrounds, political affiliations, and views on controversial topics in intelligence research.
649 +
650 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
651 + - **90% of experts were from Western countries**, and **83% were male**.
652 + - Political spectrum ranged from **54% left-liberal, 24% conservative**, with significant ideological influences on views.
653 +
654 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
655 + - Experts rated media coverage of intelligence research as **poor (avg. 3.1 on a 9-point scale)**.
656 + - **50% of experts attributed US Black-White IQ differences to genetic factors, 50% to environmental factors**.
657 +
658 +----
659 +
660 +## **Findings**##
661 +
662 +1. **Primary Observations:**
663 + - Experts overwhelmingly support **the g-factor theory of intelligence**.
664 + - **Heritability of intelligence** was widely accepted, though views differed on race and group differences.
665 +
666 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
667 + - **Left-leaning experts were more likely to reject genetic explanations for group IQ differences**.
668 + - **Right-leaning experts tended to favor a stronger role for genetic factors** in intelligence disparities.
669 +
670 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
671 + - The study compared **media coverage of intelligence research** with expert opinions.
672 + - Found a **disconnect between journalists and intelligence researchers**, especially regarding politically sensitive issues.
673 +
674 +----
675 +
676 +## **Critique and Observations**##
677 +
678 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
679 + - **Largest expert survey on intelligence research** to date.
680 + - Provides insight into **how political orientation influences scientific perspectives**.
681 +
682 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
683 + - **Sample primarily from Western countries**, limiting global perspectives.
684 + - Self-selection bias may skew responses toward **those more willing to engage with controversial topics**.
685 +
686 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
687 + - Future studies should include **a broader range of global experts**.
688 + - Additional research needed on **media biases and misrepresentation of intelligence research**.
689 +
690 +----
691 +
692 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
693 +- Provides insight into **expert consensus and division on intelligence research**.
694 +- Highlights the **role of media bias** in shaping public perception of intelligence science.
695 +- Useful for understanding **the intersection of science, politics, and public discourse** on intelligence research.##
696 +
697 +----
698 +
699 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
700 +
701 +1. Examine **cross-national differences** in expert opinions on intelligence.
702 +2. Investigate how **media bias impacts public understanding of intelligence research**.
703 +3. Conduct follow-up studies with **a more diverse expert pool** to test findings.
704 +
705 +----
706 +
707 +## **Summary of Research Study**
708 +This study surveys **expert opinions on intelligence research**, analyzing **how backgrounds, political ideologies, and media representation influence perspectives on intelligence**. The findings highlight **divisions in scientific consensus**, particularly on **genetic vs. environmental causes of IQ disparities**. Additionally, the research uncovers **widespread dissatisfaction with media portrayals of intelligence research**, pointing to **the impact of ideological biases on public discourse**.##
709 +
710 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
711 +
712 +----
713 +
714 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
715 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2019.101406.pdf]]##
716 +{{/expand}}
717 +
718 +
719 +== Study: A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation ==
720 +
721 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"}}
722 +**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
723 +**Date of Publication:** *2015*
724 +**Author(s):** *Davide Piffer*
725 +**Title:** *"A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"*
726 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008)
727 +**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Intelligence, GWAS, Population Differences* 
728 +
729 +----
730 +
731 +## **Key Statistics**##
732 +
733 +1. **General Observations:**
734 + - Study analyzed **genome-wide association studies (GWAS) hits** linked to intelligence.
735 + - Found a **strong correlation (r = .91) between polygenic intelligence scores and national IQ levels**.
736 +
737 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
738 + - Factor analysis of **9 intelligence-associated alleles** revealed a metagene correlated with **country IQ (r = .86)**.
739 + - **Allele frequencies varied significantly by continent**, aligning with observed population differences in cognitive ability.
740 +
741 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
742 + - GWAS intelligence SNPs predicted **IQ levels more strongly than random genetic markers**.
743 + - Genetic differentiation (Fst values) showed that **selection pressure, rather than drift, influenced intelligence-related allele distributions**.
744 +
745 +----
746 +
747 +## **Findings**##
748 +
749 +1. **Primary Observations:**
750 + - Intelligence-associated SNP frequencies correlate **highly with national IQ levels**.
751 + - Genetic selection for intelligence appears **stronger than selection for height-related genes**.
752 +
753 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
754 + - **East Asian populations** exhibited the **highest frequencies of intelligence-associated alleles**.
755 + - **African populations** showed lower frequencies compared to European and East Asian populations.
756 +
757 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
758 + - Polygenic scores using **intelligence-related alleles significantly outperformed random SNPs** in predicting IQ.
759 + - Selection pressures **may explain differences in global intelligence distribution** beyond genetic drift effects.
760 +
761 +----
762 +
763 +## **Critique and Observations**##
764 +
765 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
766 + - **Comprehensive genetic analysis** of intelligence-linked SNPs.
767 + - Uses **multiple statistical methods (factor analysis, Fst analysis) to confirm results**.
768 +
769 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
770 + - **Correlation does not imply causation**; factors beyond genetics influence intelligence.
771 + - **Limited number of GWAS-identified intelligence alleles**—future studies may identify more.
772 +
773 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
774 + - Larger **cross-population GWAS studies** needed to validate findings.
775 + - Investigate **non-genetic contributors to IQ variance** in addition to genetic factors.
776 +
777 +----
778 +
779 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
780 +- Supports research on **genetic influences on intelligence at a population level**.
781 +- Aligns with broader discussions on **cognitive genetics and natural selection effects**.
782 +- Provides a **quantitative framework for analyzing polygenic selection in intelligence studies**.##
783 +
784 +----
785 +
786 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
787 +
788 +1. Conduct **expanded GWAS studies** including diverse populations.
789 +2. Investigate **gene-environment interactions influencing intelligence**.
790 +3. Explore **historical selection pressures shaping intelligence-related alleles**.
791 +
792 +----
793 +
794 +## **Summary of Research Study**
795 +This study reviews **genome-wide association study (GWAS) findings on intelligence**, demonstrating a **strong correlation between polygenic intelligence scores and national IQ levels**. The research highlights how **genetic selection may explain population-level cognitive differences beyond genetic drift effects**. Intelligence-linked alleles showed **higher variability across populations than height-related alleles**, suggesting stronger selection pressures.  ##
796 +
797 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
798 +
799 +----
800 +
801 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
802 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2015.08.008.pdf]]##
803 +{{/expand}}
804 +
805 +
806 +== Study: Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding ==
807 +
808 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Click here to expand details"}}
809 +**Source:** Journal of Genetic Epidemiology
810 +**Date of Publication:** 2024-01-15
811 +**Author(s):** Smith et al.
812 +**Title:** "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies"
813 +**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235](https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235)
814 +**Subject Matter:** Genetics, Social Science 
815 +
816 +**Tags:** `Genetics` `Race & Ethnicity` `Biomedical Research`
817 +
818 +=== **Key Statistics** ===
819 +
820 +1. **General Observations:**
821 + - A near-perfect alignment between self-identified race/ethnicity (SIRE) and genetic ancestry was observed.
822 + - Misclassification rate: **0.14%**.
823 +
824 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
825 + - Four groups analyzed: **White, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic**.
826 + - Hispanic genetic clusters showed significant European and Native American lineage.
827 +
828 +=== **Findings** ===
829 +
830 +- Self-identified race strongly aligns with genetic ancestry.
831 +- Minor discrepancies exist but do not significantly impact classification.
832 +
833 +=== **Relevance to Subproject** ===
834 +
835 +- Reinforces the reliability of **self-reported racial identity** in genetic research.
836 +- Highlights **policy considerations** in biomedical studies.
837 +{{/expand}}
838 +
839 +
840 +----
841 +
842 += Dating and Interpersonal Relationships =
843 +
844 +
845 +== Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018 ==
846 +
847 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"}}
142 142  **Source:** *JAMA Network Open*
143 143  **Date of Publication:** *2020*
144 144  **Author(s):** *Ueda P, Mercer CH, Ghaznavi C, Herbenick D.*
145 145  **Title:** *"Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"*
146 146  **DOI:** [10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833)
147 -**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Sexual Behavior, Demography*
853 +**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Sexual Behavior, Demography* 
148 148  
149 ----
855 +----
150 150  
151 -## **Key Statistics**
857 +## **Key Statistics**##
858 +
152 152  1. **General Observations:**
153 153   - Study analyzed **General Social Survey (2000-2018)** data.
154 154   - Found **declining trends in sexual activity** among young adults.
... ... @@ -161,9 +161,10 @@
161 161   - Frequency of sexual activity decreased by **8-10%** over the studied period.
162 162   - Number of sexual partners remained **relatively stable** despite declining activity rates.
163 163  
164 ----
871 +----
165 165  
166 -## **Findings**
873 +## **Findings**##
874 +
167 167  1. **Primary Observations:**
168 168   - A significant decline in sexual frequency, especially among **younger men**.
169 169   - Shifts in relationship dynamics and economic stressors may contribute to the trend.
... ... @@ -176,9 +176,10 @@
176 176   - **Mental health and employment status** were correlated with decreased activity.
177 177   - Social factors such as **screen time and digital entertainment consumption** are potential contributors.
178 178  
179 ----
887 +----
180 180  
181 -## **Critique and Observations**
889 +## **Critique and Observations**##
890 +
182 182  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
183 183   - **Large sample size** from a nationally representative dataset.
184 184   - **Longitudinal design** enables trend analysis over time.
... ... @@ -191,26 +191,27 @@
191 191   - Further studies should incorporate **qualitative data** on behavioral shifts.
192 192   - Additional factors such as **economic shifts and social media usage** need exploration.
193 193  
194 ----
903 +----
195 195  
196 196  ## **Relevance to Subproject**
197 197  - Provides evidence on **changing demographic behaviors** in relation to relationships and social interactions.
198 -- Highlights the role of **mental health, employment, and societal changes** in personal behaviors.
907 +- Highlights the role of **mental health, employment, and societal changes** in personal behaviors.##
199 199  
200 ----
909 +----
201 201  
202 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
911 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
912 +
203 203  1. Investigate the **impact of digital media consumption** on relationship dynamics.
204 204  2. Examine **regional and cultural differences** in sexual activity trends.
205 205  
206 ----
916 +----
207 207  
208 208  ## **Summary of Research Study**
209 -This study examines **trends in sexual frequency and number of partners among U.S. adults (2000-2018)**, highlighting significant **declines in sexual activity, particularly among young men**. The research utilized **General Social Survey data** to analyze the impact of **sociodemographic factors, employment status, and mental well-being** on sexual behavior.
919 +This study examines **trends in sexual frequency and number of partners among U.S. adults (2000-2018)**, highlighting significant **declines in sexual activity, particularly among young men**. The research utilized **General Social Survey data** to analyze the impact of **sociodemographic factors, employment status, and mental well-being** on sexual behavior.  ##
210 210  
211 211  This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study's contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
212 212  
213 ----
923 +----
214 214  
215 215  ## **📄 Download Full Study**
216 216  {{velocity}}
... ... @@ -220,25 +220,111 @@
220 220  [[Download>>attach:$filename]]
221 221  #else
222 222  {{html}}<span style="color: red; font-weight: bold;">🚨 PDF Not Available 🚨</span>{{/html}}
223 -#end
224 -{{/velocity}}
933 +#end {{/velocity}}##
934 +{{/expand}}
225 225  
936 +
937 +== Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis ==
938 +
939 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"}}
940 +**Source:** *Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica*
941 +**Date of Publication:** *2012*
942 +**Author(s):** *Ravisha M. Srinivasjois, Shreya Shah, Prakesh S. Shah, Knowledge Synthesis Group on Determinants of Preterm/LBW Births*
943 +**Title:** *"Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"*
944 +**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x)
945 +**Subject Matter:** *Neonatal Health, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Racial Disparities* 
946 +
947 +----
948 +
949 +## **Key Statistics**##
950 +
951 +1. **General Observations:**
952 + - Meta-analysis of **26,335,596 singleton births** from eight studies.
953 + - **Higher risk of adverse birth outcomes in biracial couples** than White couples, but lower than Black couples.
954 +
955 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
956 + - **Maternal race had a stronger influence than paternal race** on birth outcomes.
957 + - **Black mother–White father (BMWF) couples** had a higher risk than **White mother–Black father (WMBF) couples**.
958 +
959 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
960 + - **Adjusted Odds Ratios (aORs) for key outcomes:**
961 + - **Low birthweight (LBW):** WMBF (1.21), BMWF (1.75), Black mother–Black father (BMBF) (2.08).
962 + - **Preterm births (PTB):** WMBF (1.17), BMWF (1.37), BMBF (1.78).
963 + - **Stillbirths:** WMBF (1.43), BMWF (1.51), BMBF (1.85).
964 +
965 +----
966 +
967 +## **Findings**##
968 +
969 +1. **Primary Observations:**
970 + - **Biracial couples face a gradient of risk**: higher than White couples but lower than Black couples.
971 + - **Maternal race plays a more significant role** in pregnancy outcomes.
972 +
973 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
974 + - **Black mothers (regardless of paternal race) had the highest risk of LBW and PTB**.
975 + - **White mothers with Black fathers had a lower risk** than Black mothers with White fathers.
976 +
977 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
978 + - The **weathering hypothesis** suggests that **long-term stress exposure** contributes to higher adverse birth risks in Black mothers.
979 + - **Genetic and environmental factors** may interact to influence birth outcomes.
980 +
981 +----
982 +
983 +## **Critique and Observations**##
984 +
985 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
986 + - **Largest meta-analysis** on racial disparities in birth outcomes.
987 + - Uses **adjusted statistical models** to account for confounding variables.
988 +
989 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
990 + - Data limited to **Black-White biracial couples**, excluding other racial groups.
991 + - **Socioeconomic and healthcare access factors** not fully explored.
992 +
993 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
994 + - Future studies should examine **Asian, Hispanic, and Indigenous biracial couples**.
995 + - Investigate **long-term health effects on infants from biracial pregnancies**.
996 +
997 +----
998 +
999 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1000 +- Provides **critical insights into racial disparities** in maternal and infant health.
1001 +- Supports **research on genetic and environmental influences on neonatal health**.
1002 +- Highlights **how maternal race plays a more significant role than paternal race** in birth outcomes.##
1003 +
1004 +----
1005 +
1006 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1007 +
1008 +1. Investigate **the role of prenatal care quality in mitigating racial disparities**.
1009 +2. Examine **how social determinants of health impact biracial pregnancy outcomes**.
1010 +3. Explore **gene-environment interactions influencing birthweight and prematurity risks**.
1011 +
1012 +----
1013 +
1014 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1015 +This meta-analysis examines **the impact of biracial parentage on birth outcomes**, showing that **biracial couples face a higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes than White couples but lower than Black couples**. The findings emphasize **maternal race as a key factor in birth risks**, with **Black mothers having the highest rates of preterm birth and low birthweight, regardless of paternal race**.##
1016 +
1017 +----
1018 +
1019 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1020 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1600-0412.2012.01501.xAbstract.pdf]]##
226 226  {{/expand}}
227 227  
228 -{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
229 229  
1024 +== Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness ==
230 230  
231 -{{expand title="Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness" expanded="false"}}
1026 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"}}
232 232  **Source:** *Current Psychology*
233 233  **Date of Publication:** *2024*
234 234  **Author(s):** *Brandon Sparks, Alexandra M. Zidenberg, Mark E. Olver*
235 235  **Title:** *"One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"*
236 236  **DOI:** [10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z)
237 -**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Mental Health, Social Isolation*
1032 +**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Mental Health, Social Isolation* 
238 238  
239 ----
1034 +----
240 240  
241 -## **Key Statistics**
1036 +## **Key Statistics**##
1037 +
242 242  1. **General Observations:**
243 243   - Study analyzed **67 self-identified incels** and **103 non-incel men**.
244 244   - Incels reported **higher loneliness and lower social support** compared to non-incels.
... ... @@ -251,9 +251,10 @@
251 251   - 95% of incels in the study reported **having depression**, with 38% receiving a formal diagnosis.
252 252   - **Higher externalization of blame** was linked to stronger incel identification.
253 253  
254 ----
1050 +----
255 255  
256 -## **Findings**
1052 +## **Findings**##
1053 +
257 257  1. **Primary Observations:**
258 258   - Incels experience **heightened rejection sensitivity and loneliness**.
259 259   - Lack of social support correlates with **worse mental health outcomes**.
... ... @@ -266,9 +266,10 @@
266 266   - Incels **engaged in fewer positive coping mechanisms** such as emotional support or positive reframing.
267 267   - Instead, they relied on **solitary coping strategies**, worsening their isolation.
268 268  
269 ----
1066 +----
270 270  
271 -## **Critique and Observations**
1068 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1069 +
272 272  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
273 273   - **First quantitative study** on incels’ social isolation and mental health.
274 274   - **Robust sample size** and validated psychological measures.
... ... @@ -281,42 +281,1056 @@
281 281   - Future studies should **compare incel forum users vs. non-users**.
282 282   - Investigate **potential intervention strategies** for social integration.
283 283  
284 ----
1082 +----
285 285  
286 286  ## **Relevance to Subproject**
287 287  - Highlights **mental health vulnerabilities** within the incel community.
288 288  - Supports research on **loneliness, attachment styles, and social dominance orientation**.
289 -- Examines how **peer rejection influences self-perceived mate value**.
1087 +- Examines how **peer rejection influences self-perceived mate value**.##
290 290  
291 ----
1089 +----
292 292  
293 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1091 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1092 +
294 294  1. Explore how **online community participation** affects incel mental health.
295 295  2. Investigate **cognitive biases** influencing self-perceived rejection among incels.
296 296  3. Assess **therapeutic interventions** to address incel social isolation.
297 297  
298 ----
1097 +----
299 299  
300 300  ## **Summary of Research Study**
301 -This study examines the **psychological characteristics of self-identified incels**, comparing them with non-incel men in terms of **mental health, loneliness, and coping strategies**. The research found **higher depression, anxiety, and avoidant attachment styles among incels**, as well as **greater reliance on solitary coping mechanisms**. It suggests that **lack of social support plays a critical role in exacerbating incel identity and related mental health concerns**.
1100 +This study examines the **psychological characteristics of self-identified incels**, comparing them with non-incel men in terms of **mental health, loneliness, and coping strategies**. The research found **higher depression, anxiety, and avoidant attachment styles among incels**, as well as **greater reliance on solitary coping mechanisms**. It suggests that **lack of social support plays a critical role in exacerbating incel identity and related mental health concerns**.##
302 302  
303 303  This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
304 304  
305 ----
1104 +----
306 306  
307 307  ## **📄 Download Full Study**
308 -{{velocity}}
309 -#set($doi = "10.1007_s12144-023-04275-z")
310 -#set($filename = "${doi}.pdf")
311 -#if($xwiki.exists("attach:$filename"))
312 -[[Download>>attach:$filename]]
313 -#else
314 -{{html}}<span style="color: red; font-weight: bold;">🚨 PDF Not Available 🚨</span>{{/html}}
315 -#end
316 -{{/velocity}}
1107 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1007_s12144-023-04275-z.pdf]]##
1108 +{{/expand}}
317 317  
1110 +
1111 += Crime and Substance Abuse =
1112 +
1113 +
1114 +== Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program ==
1115 +
1116 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"}}
1117 +**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1118 +**Date of Publication:** *2002*
1119 +**Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
1120 +**Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
1121 +**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
1122 +**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts* 
1123 +
1124 +----
1125 +
1126 +## **Key Statistics**##
1127 +
1128 +1. **General Observations:**
1129 + - Study examined **drug treatment court success rates** among first-time offenders.
1130 + - Strongest predictors of **successful completion were employment status and race**.
1131 +
1132 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1133 + - Individuals with **stable jobs were more likely to complete the program**.
1134 + - **Black participants had lower success rates**, suggesting potential systemic disparities.
1135 +
1136 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1137 + - **Education level was positively correlated** with program completion.
1138 + - Frequency of **drug use before enrollment affected treatment outcomes**.
1139 +
1140 +----
1141 +
1142 +## **Findings**##
1143 +
1144 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1145 + - **Social stability factors** (employment, education) were key to treatment success.
1146 + - **Race and pre-existing substance use patterns** influenced completion rates.
1147 +
1148 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1149 + - White offenders had **higher completion rates** than Black offenders.
1150 + - Drug court success was **higher for those with lower initial drug use frequency**.
1151 +
1152 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1153 + - **Individuals with strong social ties were more likely to finish the program**.
1154 + - Success rates were **significantly higher for participants with case management support**.
1155 +
1156 +----
1157 +
1158 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1159 +
1160 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1161 + - **First empirical study on drug court program success factors**.
1162 + - Uses **longitudinal data** for post-treatment analysis.
1163 +
1164 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1165 + - Lacks **qualitative data on personal motivation and treatment engagement**.
1166 + - Focuses on **short-term program success** without tracking **long-term relapse rates**.
1167 +
1168 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1169 + - Future research should examine **racial disparities in drug court outcomes**.
1170 + - Study **how community resources impact long-term recovery**.
1171 +
1172 +----
1173 +
1174 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1175 +- Provides insight into **what factors contribute to drug court program success**.
1176 +- Highlights **racial disparities in criminal justice-based rehabilitation programs**.
1177 +- Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.##
1178 +
1179 +----
1180 +
1181 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1182 +
1183 +1. Investigate **the role of mental health in drug court success rates**.
1184 +2. Assess **long-term relapse prevention strategies post-treatment**.
1185 +3. Explore **alternative diversion programs beyond traditional drug courts**.
1186 +
1187 +----
1188 +
1189 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1190 +This study examines **factors influencing the completion of drug treatment court programs**, identifying **employment, education, and race as key predictors**. The research underscores **systemic disparities in drug court outcomes**, emphasizing the need for **improved support systems for at-risk populations**.##
1191 +
1192 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1193 +
1194 +----
1195 +
1196 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1197 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120014424.pdf]]##
318 318  {{/expand}}
319 319  
320 -{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
321 321  
1201 +== Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys ==
322 322  
1203 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"}}
1204 +**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1205 +**Date of Publication:** *2003*
1206 +**Author(s):** *Timothy P. Johnson, Phillip J. Bowman*
1207 +**Title:** *"Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"*
1208 +**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120023394](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120023394)
1209 +**Subject Matter:** *Survey Methodology, Racial Disparities, Substance Use Research* 
1210 +
1211 +----
1212 +
1213 +## **Key Statistics**##
1214 +
1215 +1. **General Observations:**
1216 + - Study examined **how racial and cultural factors influence self-reported substance use data**.
1217 + - Analyzed **36 empirical studies from 1977–2003** on survey reliability across racial/ethnic groups.
1218 +
1219 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1220 + - Black and Latino respondents **were more likely to underreport drug use** compared to White respondents.
1221 + - **Cultural stigma and distrust in research institutions** affected self-report accuracy.
1222 +
1223 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1224 + - **Surveys using biological validation (urinalysis, hair tests) revealed underreporting trends**.
1225 + - **Higher recantation rates** (denying past drug use) were observed among minority respondents.
1226 +
1227 +----
1228 +
1229 +## **Findings**##
1230 +
1231 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1232 + - Racial/ethnic disparities in **substance use reporting bias survey-based research**.
1233 + - **Social desirability and cultural norms impact data reliability**.
1234 +
1235 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1236 + - White respondents were **more likely to overreport** substance use.
1237 + - Black and Latino respondents **had higher recantation rates**, particularly in face-to-face interviews.
1238 +
1239 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1240 + - Mode of survey administration **significantly influenced reporting accuracy**.
1241 + - **Self-administered surveys produced more reliable data than interviewer-administered surveys**.
1242 +
1243 +----
1244 +
1245 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1246 +
1247 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1248 + - **Comprehensive review of 36 studies** on measurement error in substance use reporting.
1249 + - Identifies **systemic biases affecting racial/ethnic survey reliability**.
1250 +
1251 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1252 + - Relies on **secondary data analysis**, limiting direct experimental control.
1253 + - Does not explore **how measurement error impacts policy decisions**.
1254 +
1255 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1256 + - Future research should **incorporate mixed-method approaches** (qualitative & quantitative).
1257 + - Investigate **how survey design can reduce racial reporting disparities**.
1258 +
1259 +----
1260 +
1261 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1262 +- Supports research on **racial disparities in self-reported health behaviors**.
1263 +- Highlights **survey methodology issues that impact substance use epidemiology**.
1264 +- Provides insights for **improving data accuracy in public health research**.##
1265 +
1266 +----
1267 +
1268 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1269 +
1270 +1. Investigate **how survey design impacts racial disparities in self-reported health data**.
1271 +2. Study **alternative data collection methods (biometric validation, passive data tracking)**.
1272 +3. Explore **the role of social stigma in self-reported health behaviors**.
1273 +
1274 +----
1275 +
1276 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1277 +This study examines **cross-cultural biases in self-reported substance use surveys**, showing that **racial/ethnic minorities are more likely to underreport drug use** due to **social stigma, research distrust, and survey administration methods**. The findings highlight **critical issues in public health data collection and the need for improved survey design**.##
1278 +
1279 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1280 +
1281 +----
1282 +
1283 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1284 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120023394.pdf]]##
1285 +{{/expand}}
1286 +
1287 +
1288 +== Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program ==
1289 +
1290 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"}}
1291 +**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1292 +**Date of Publication:** *2002*
1293 +**Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
1294 +**Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
1295 +**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
1296 +**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts* 
1297 +
1298 +----
1299 +
1300 +## **Key Statistics**##
1301 +
1302 +1. **General Observations:**
1303 + - Study examined **drug treatment court success rates** among first-time offenders.
1304 + - Strongest predictors of **successful completion were employment status and race**.
1305 +
1306 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1307 + - Individuals with **stable jobs were more likely to complete the program**.
1308 + - **Black participants had lower success rates**, suggesting potential systemic disparities.
1309 +
1310 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1311 + - **Education level was positively correlated** with program completion.
1312 + - Frequency of **drug use before enrollment affected treatment outcomes**.
1313 +
1314 +----
1315 +
1316 +## **Findings**##
1317 +
1318 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1319 + - **Social stability factors** (employment, education) were key to treatment success.
1320 + - **Race and pre-existing substance use patterns** influenced completion rates.
1321 +
1322 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1323 + - White offenders had **higher completion rates** than Black offenders.
1324 + - Drug court success was **higher for those with lower initial drug use frequency**.
1325 +
1326 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1327 + - **Individuals with strong social ties were more likely to finish the program**.
1328 + - Success rates were **significantly higher for participants with case management support**.
1329 +
1330 +----
1331 +
1332 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1333 +
1334 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1335 + - **First empirical study on drug court program success factors**.
1336 + - Uses **longitudinal data** for post-treatment analysis.
1337 +
1338 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1339 + - Lacks **qualitative data on personal motivation and treatment engagement**.
1340 + - Focuses on **short-term program success** without tracking **long-term relapse rates**.
1341 +
1342 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1343 + - Future research should examine **racial disparities in drug court outcomes**.
1344 + - Study **how community resources impact long-term recovery**.
1345 +
1346 +----
1347 +
1348 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1349 +- Provides insight into **what factors contribute to drug court program success**.
1350 +- Highlights **racial disparities in criminal justice-based rehabilitation programs**.
1351 +- Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.##
1352 +
1353 +----
1354 +
1355 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1356 +
1357 +1. Investigate **the role of mental health in drug court success rates**.
1358 +2. Assess **long-term relapse prevention strategies post-treatment**.
1359 +3. Explore **alternative diversion programs beyond traditional drug courts**.
1360 +
1361 +----
1362 +
1363 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1364 +This study examines **factors influencing the completion of drug treatment court programs**, identifying **employment, education, and race as key predictors**. The research underscores **systemic disparities in drug court outcomes**, emphasizing the need for **improved support systems for at-risk populations**.##
1365 +
1366 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1367 +
1368 +----
1369 +
1370 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1371 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120014424.pdf]]##
1372 +{{/expand}}
1373 +
1374 +
1375 +== Study: Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults ==
1376 +
1377 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults"}}
1378 + Source: Addictive Behaviors
1379 +Date of Publication: 2016
1380 +Author(s): Andrea Hussong, Christy Capron, Gregory T. Smith, Jennifer L. Maggs
1381 +Title: "Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults"
1382 +DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.02.030
1383 +Subject Matter: Substance Use, Mental Health, Adolescent Development
1384 +
1385 +Key Statistics
1386 +General Observations:
1387 +
1388 +Study examined cannabis use trends in young adults over time.
1389 +Found significant correlations between cannabis use and increased depressive symptoms.
1390 +Subgroup Analysis:
1391 +
1392 +Males exhibited higher rates of cannabis use, but females reported stronger mental health impacts.
1393 +Individuals with pre-existing anxiety disorders were more likely to report problematic cannabis use.
1394 +Other Significant Data Points:
1395 +
1396 +Frequent cannabis users showed a 23% higher likelihood of developing anxiety symptoms.
1397 +Co-occurring substance use (e.g., alcohol) exacerbated negative psychological effects.
1398 +Findings
1399 +Primary Observations:
1400 +
1401 +Cannabis use was linked to higher depressive and anxiety symptoms, particularly in frequent users.
1402 +Self-medication patterns emerged among those with pre-existing mental health conditions.
1403 +Subgroup Trends:
1404 +
1405 +Early cannabis initiation (before age 16) was associated with greater mental health risks.
1406 +College-aged users reported more impairments in daily functioning due to cannabis use.
1407 +Specific Case Analysis:
1408 +
1409 +Participants with a history of childhood trauma were twice as likely to develop problematic cannabis use.
1410 +Co-use of cannabis and alcohol significantly increased impulsivity scores in the study sample.
1411 +Critique and Observations
1412 +Strengths of the Study:
1413 +
1414 +Large, longitudinal dataset with a diverse sample of young adults.
1415 +Controlled for confounding variables like socioeconomic status and prior substance use.
1416 +Limitations of the Study:
1417 +
1418 +Self-reported cannabis use may introduce bias in reported frequency and effects.
1419 +Did not assess specific THC potency levels, which could influence mental health outcomes.
1420 +Suggestions for Improvement:
1421 +
1422 +Future research should investigate dose-dependent effects of cannabis on mental health.
1423 +Assess long-term psychological outcomes of early cannabis exposure.
1424 +Relevance to Subproject
1425 +Supports mental health risk assessment models related to substance use.
1426 +Highlights gender differences in substance-related psychological impacts.
1427 +Provides insight into self-medication behaviors among young adults.
1428 +Suggestions for Further Exploration
1429 +Investigate the long-term impact of cannabis use on neurodevelopment.
1430 +Examine the role of genetic predisposition in cannabis-related mental health risks.
1431 +Assess regional differences in cannabis use trends post-legalization.
1432 +Summary of Research Study
1433 +This study examines the relationship between cannabis use and mental health symptoms in young adults, focusing on depressive and anxiety-related outcomes. Using a longitudinal dataset, the researchers found higher risks of anxiety and depression in frequent cannabis users, particularly among those with pre-existing mental health conditions or early cannabis initiation.
1434 +
1435 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1436 +
1437 +📄 Download Full Study
1438 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.addbeh.2016.02.030.pdf]]
1439 +{{/expand}}
1440 +
1441 +
1442 +== Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time? ==
1443 +
1444 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"}}
1445 +**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
1446 +**Date of Publication:** *2014*
1447 +**Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley, Jan te Nijenhuis, Raegan Murphy*
1448 +**Title:** *"Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"*
1449 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.012)
1450 +**Subject Matter:** *Cognitive Decline, Intelligence, Dysgenics* 
1451 +
1452 +----
1453 +
1454 +## **Key Statistics**##
1455 +
1456 +1. **General Observations:**
1457 + - The study examines reaction time data from **13 age-matched studies** spanning **1884–2004**.
1458 + - Results suggest an estimated **decline of 13.35 IQ points** over this period.
1459 +
1460 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1461 + - The study found **slower reaction times in modern populations** compared to Victorian-era individuals.
1462 + - Data from **Western countries (US, UK, Canada, Australia, Finland)** were analyzed.
1463 +
1464 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1465 + - The estimated **dysgenic rate is 1.21 IQ points lost per decade**.
1466 + - Meta-regression analysis confirmed a **steady secular trend in slowing reaction time**.
1467 +
1468 +----
1469 +
1470 +## **Findings**##
1471 +
1472 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1473 + - Supports the hypothesis of **intelligence decline due to genetic and environmental factors**.
1474 + - Reaction time, a **biomarker for cognitive ability**, has slowed significantly over time.
1475 +
1476 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1477 + - A stronger **correlation between slower reaction time and lower general intelligence (g)**.
1478 + - Flynn effect (IQ gains) does not contradict this finding, as reaction time is a **biological, not environmental, measure**.
1479 +
1480 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1481 + - Cross-national comparisons indicate a **global trend in slower reaction times**.
1482 + - Factors like **modern neurotoxin exposure** and **reduced selective pressure for intelligence** may contribute.
1483 +
1484 +----
1485 +
1486 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1487 +
1488 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1489 + - **Comprehensive meta-analysis** covering over a century of reaction time data.
1490 + - **Robust statistical corrections** for measurement variance between historical and modern studies.
1491 +
1492 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1493 + - Some historical data sources **lack methodological consistency**.
1494 + - **Reaction time measurements vary by study**, requiring adjustments for equipment differences.
1495 +
1496 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1497 + - Future studies should **replicate results with more modern datasets**.
1498 + - Investigate **alternative cognitive biomarkers** for intelligence over time.
1499 +
1500 +----
1501 +
1502 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1503 +- Provides evidence for **long-term intelligence trends**, contributing to research on **cognitive evolution**.
1504 +- Aligns with broader discussions on **dysgenics, neurophysiology, and cognitive load**.
1505 +- Supports the argument that **modern societies may be experiencing intelligence decline**.##
1506 +
1507 +----
1508 +
1509 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1510 +
1511 +1. Investigate **genetic markers associated with reaction time** and intelligence decline.
1512 +2. Examine **regional variations in reaction time trends**.
1513 +3. Explore **cognitive resilience factors that counteract the decline**.
1514 +
1515 +----
1516 +
1517 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1518 +This study examines **historical reaction time data** as a measure of **cognitive ability and intelligence decline**, analyzing data from **Western populations between 1884 and 2004**. The results suggest a **measurable decline in intelligence, estimated at 13.35 IQ points**, likely due to **dysgenic fertility, neurophysiological factors, and reduced selection pressures**.  ##
1519 +
1520 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1521 +
1522 +----
1523 +
1524 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1525 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2014.05.012.pdf]]##
1526 +{{/expand}}
1527 +
1528 +
1529 += Whiteness & White Guilt =
1530 +
1531 +== Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports ==
1532 +
1533 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}}
1534 +**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1535 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1536 +**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1537 +**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1538 +**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1539 +**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sports, Higher Education, Institutional Racism* 
1540 +
1541 +----
1542 +
1543 +## **Key Statistics**##
1544 +
1545 +1. **General Observations:**
1546 + - Analyzed **47 college athlete narratives** to explore racial disparities in non-revenue sports.
1547 + - Found three interrelated themes: **racial segregation, racial innocence, and racial protection**.
1548 +
1549 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1550 + - **Predominantly white sports programs** reinforce racial hierarchies in college athletics.
1551 + - **Recruitment policies favor white athletes** from affluent, suburban backgrounds.
1552 +
1553 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1554 + - White athletes are **socialized to remain unaware of racial privilege** in their athletic careers.
1555 + - Media and institutional narratives protect white athletes from discussions on race and systemic inequities.
1556 +
1557 +----
1558 +
1559 +## **Findings**##
1560 +
1561 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1562 + - Colleges **actively recruit white athletes** from majority-white communities.
1563 + - Institutional policies **uphold whiteness** by failing to challenge racial biases in recruitment and team culture.
1564 +
1565 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1566 + - **White athletes show limited awareness** of their racial advantage in sports.
1567 + - **Black athletes are overrepresented** in revenue-generating sports but underrepresented in non-revenue teams.
1568 +
1569 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1570 + - Examines **how sports serve as a mechanism for maintaining racial privilege** in higher education.
1571 + - Discusses the **role of athletics in reinforcing systemic segregation and exclusion**.
1572 +
1573 +----
1574 +
1575 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1576 +
1577 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1578 + - **Comprehensive qualitative analysis** of race in college sports.
1579 + - Examines **institutional conditions** that sustain racial disparities in athletics.
1580 +
1581 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1582 + - Focuses primarily on **Division I non-revenue sports**, limiting generalizability to other divisions.
1583 + - Lacks extensive **quantitative data on racial demographics** in college athletics.
1584 +
1585 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1586 + - Future research should **compare recruitment policies across different sports and divisions**.
1587 + - Investigate **how athletic scholarships contribute to racial inequities in higher education**.
1588 +
1589 +----
1590 +
1591 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1592 +- Provides evidence of **systemic racial biases** in college sports recruitment.
1593 +- Highlights **how institutional policies protect whiteness** in non-revenue athletics.
1594 +- Supports research on **diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in sports and education**.##
1595 +
1596 +----
1597 +
1598 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1599 +
1600 +1. Investigate how **racial stereotypes influence college athlete recruitment**.
1601 +2. Examine **the role of media in shaping public perceptions of race in sports**.
1602 +3. Explore **policy reforms to increase racial diversity in non-revenue sports**.
1603 +
1604 +----
1605 +
1606 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1607 +This study explores how **racial segregation, innocence, and protection** sustain whiteness in college sports. By analyzing **47 athlete narratives**, the research reveals **how predominantly white sports programs recruit and retain white athletes** while shielding them from discussions on race. The findings highlight **institutional biases that maintain racial privilege in athletics**, offering critical insight into the **structural inequalities in higher education sports programs**.##
1608 +
1609 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1610 +
1611 +----
1612 +
1613 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1614 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1037_dhe0000140.pdf]]##
1615 +{{/expand}}
1616 +
1617 +
1618 +== Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations ==
1619 +
1620 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
1621 +**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1622 +**Date of Publication:** *2016*
1623 +**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axta, M. Norman Oliver*
1624 +**Title:** *"Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs About Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites"*
1625 +**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1626 +**Subject Matter:** *Health Disparities, Racial Bias, Medical Treatment* 
1627 +
1628 +----
1629 +
1630 +## **Key Statistics**##
1631 +
1632 +1. **General Observations:**
1633 + - Study analyzed **racial disparities in pain perception and treatment recommendations**.
1634 + - Found that **white laypeople and medical students endorsed false beliefs about biological differences** between Black and white individuals.
1635 +
1636 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1637 + - **50% of medical students surveyed endorsed at least one false belief about biological differences**.
1638 + - Participants who held these false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients’ pain levels**.
1639 +
1640 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1641 + - **Black patients were less likely to receive appropriate pain treatment** compared to white patients.
1642 + - The study confirmed that **historical misconceptions about racial differences still persist in modern medicine**.
1643 +
1644 +----
1645 +
1646 +## **Findings**##
1647 +
1648 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1649 + - False beliefs about biological racial differences **correlate with racial disparities in pain treatment**.
1650 + - Medical students and residents who endorsed these beliefs **showed greater racial bias in treatment recommendations**.
1651 +
1652 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1653 + - Physicians who **did not endorse these beliefs** showed **no racial bias** in treatment recommendations.
1654 + - Bias was **strongest among first-year medical students** and decreased slightly in later years of training.
1655 +
1656 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1657 + - Study participants **underestimated Black patients' pain and recommended less effective pain treatments**.
1658 + - The study suggests that **racial disparities in medical care stem, in part, from these enduring false beliefs**.
1659 +
1660 +----
1661 +
1662 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1663 +
1664 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1665 + - **First empirical study to connect false racial beliefs with medical decision-making**.
1666 + - Utilizes a **large sample of medical students and residents** from diverse institutions.
1667 +
1668 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1669 + - The study focuses on **Black vs. white disparities**, leaving other racial/ethnic groups unexplored.
1670 + - Participants' responses were based on **hypothetical medical cases, not real-world treatment decisions**.
1671 +
1672 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1673 + - Future research should examine **how these biases manifest in real clinical settings**.
1674 + - Investigate **whether medical training can correct these biases over time**.
1675 +
1676 +----
1677 +
1678 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1679 +- Highlights **racial disparities in healthcare**, specifically in pain assessment and treatment.
1680 +- Supports **research on implicit bias and its impact on medical outcomes**.
1681 +- Provides evidence for **the need to address racial bias in medical education**.##
1682 +
1683 +----
1684 +
1685 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1686 +
1687 +1. Investigate **interventions to reduce racial bias in medical decision-making**.
1688 +2. Explore **how implicit bias training impacts pain treatment recommendations**.
1689 +3. Conduct **real-world observational studies on racial disparities in healthcare settings**.
1690 +
1691 +----
1692 +
1693 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1694 +This study examines **racial bias in pain perception and treatment** among **white laypeople and medical professionals**, demonstrating that **false beliefs about biological differences contribute to disparities in pain management**. The research highlights the **systemic nature of racial bias in medicine** and underscores the **need for improved medical training to counteract these misconceptions**.##
1695 +
1696 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1697 +
1698 +----
1699 +
1700 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1701 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1516047113.pdf]]##
1702 +{{/expand}}
1703 +
1704 +
1705 +== Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans ==
1706 +
1707 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}}
1708 +**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1709 +**Date of Publication:** *2015*
1710 +**Author(s):** *Anne Case, Angus Deaton*
1711 +**Title:** *"Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st Century"*
1712 +**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1518393112](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518393112)
1713 +**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Mortality, Socioeconomic Factors* 
1714 +
1715 +----
1716 +
1717 +## **Key Statistics**##
1718 +
1719 +1. **General Observations:**
1720 + - Mortality rates among **middle-aged white non-Hispanic Americans (ages 45–54)** increased from 1999 to 2013.
1721 + - This reversal in mortality trends is unique to the U.S.; **no other wealthy country experienced a similar rise**.
1722 +
1723 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1724 + - The increase was **most pronounced among those with a high school education or less**.
1725 + - Hispanic and Black non-Hispanic mortality continued to decline over the same period.
1726 +
1727 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1728 + - Rising mortality was driven primarily by **suicide, drug and alcohol poisoning, and chronic liver disease**.
1729 + - Midlife morbidity increased as well, with more reports of **poor health, pain, and mental distress**.
1730 +
1731 +----
1732 +
1733 +## **Findings**##
1734 +
1735 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1736 + - The rise in mortality is attributed to **substance abuse, economic distress, and deteriorating mental health**.
1737 + - The increase in **suicides and opioid overdoses parallels broader socioeconomic decline**.
1738 +
1739 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1740 + - The **largest mortality increases** occurred among **whites without a college degree**.
1741 + - Chronic pain, functional limitations, and self-reported mental distress **rose significantly in affected groups**.
1742 +
1743 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1744 + - **Educational attainment was a major predictor of mortality trends**, with better-educated individuals experiencing lower mortality rates.
1745 + - Mortality among **white Americans with a college degree continued to decline**, resembling trends in other wealthy nations.
1746 +
1747 +----
1748 +
1749 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1750 +
1751 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1752 + - **First major study to highlight rising midlife mortality among U.S. whites**.
1753 + - Uses **CDC and Census mortality data spanning over a decade**.
1754 +
1755 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1756 + - Does not establish **causality** between economic decline and increased mortality.
1757 + - Lacks **granular data on opioid prescribing patterns and regional differences**.
1758 +
1759 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1760 + - Future studies should explore **how economic shifts, healthcare access, and mental health treatment contribute to these trends**.
1761 + - Further research on **racial and socioeconomic disparities in mortality trends** is needed.
1762 +
1763 +----
1764 +
1765 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1766 +- Highlights **socioeconomic and racial disparities** in health outcomes.
1767 +- Supports research on **substance abuse and mental health crises in the U.S.**.
1768 +- Provides evidence for **the role of economic instability in public health trends**.##
1769 +
1770 +----
1771 +
1772 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1773 +
1774 +1. Investigate **regional differences in rising midlife mortality**.
1775 +2. Examine the **impact of the opioid crisis on long-term health trends**.
1776 +3. Study **policy interventions aimed at reversing rising mortality rates**.
1777 +
1778 +----
1779 +
1780 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1781 +This study documents a **reversal in mortality trends among middle-aged white non-Hispanic Americans**, showing an increase in **suicide, drug overdoses, and alcohol-related deaths** from 1999 to 2013. The findings highlight **socioeconomic distress, declining health, and rising morbidity** as key factors. This research underscores the **importance of economic and social policy in shaping public health outcomes**.##
1782 +
1783 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1784 +
1785 +----
1786 +
1787 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1788 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1518393112.pdf]]##
1789 +{{/expand}}
1790 +
1791 +
1792 +== Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities? ==
1793 +
1794 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"}}
1795 +**Source:** *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies*
1796 +**Date of Publication:** *2023*
1797 +**Author(s):** *Maurice Crul, Frans Lelie, Elif Keskiner, Laure Michon, Ismintha Waldring*
1798 +**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1799 +**DOI:** [10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548](https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548)
1800 +**Subject Matter:** *Urban Sociology, Migration Studies, Integration* 
1801 +
1802 +----
1803 +
1804 +## **Key Statistics**##
1805 +
1806 +1. **General Observations:**
1807 + - Study examines the role of **people without migration background** in majority-minority cities.
1808 + - Analyzes **over 3,000 survey responses and 150 in-depth interviews** from six North-Western European cities.
1809 +
1810 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1811 + - Explores differences in **integration, social interactions, and perceptions of diversity**.
1812 + - Studies how **class, education, and neighborhood composition** affect adaptation to urban diversity.
1813 +
1814 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1815 + - The study introduces the **Becoming a Minority (BaM) project**, a large-scale investigation of urban demographic shifts.
1816 + - **People without migration background perceive diversity differently**, with some embracing and others resisting change.
1817 +
1818 +----
1819 +
1820 +## **Findings**##
1821 +
1822 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1823 + - The study **challenges traditional integration theories**, arguing that non-migrant groups also undergo adaptation processes.
1824 + - Some residents **struggle with demographic changes**, while others see diversity as an asset.
1825 +
1826 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1827 + - Young, educated individuals in urban areas **are more open to cultural diversity**.
1828 + - Older and less mobile residents **report feelings of displacement and social isolation**.
1829 +
1830 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1831 + - Examines how **people without migration background navigate majority-minority settings** in cities like Amsterdam and Vienna.
1832 + - Analyzes **whether former ethnic majority groups now perceive themselves as minorities**.
1833 +
1834 +----
1835 +
1836 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1837 +
1838 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1839 + - **Innovative approach** by examining the impact of migration on native populations.
1840 + - Uses **both qualitative and quantitative data** for robust analysis.
1841 +
1842 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1843 + - Limited to **Western European urban settings**, missing perspectives from other global regions.
1844 + - Does not fully explore **policy interventions for fostering social cohesion**.
1845 +
1846 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1847 + - Expand research to **other geographical contexts** to understand migration effects globally.
1848 + - Investigate **long-term trends in urban adaptation and community building**.
1849 +
1850 +----
1851 +
1852 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1853 +- Provides a **new perspective on urban integration**, shifting focus from migrants to native-born populations.
1854 +- Highlights the **role of social and economic power in shaping urban diversity outcomes**.
1855 +- Challenges existing **assimilation theories by showing bidirectional adaptation in diverse cities**.##
1856 +
1857 +----
1858 +
1859 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1860 +
1861 +1. Study how **local policies shape attitudes toward urban diversity**.
1862 +2. Investigate **the role of economic and housing policies in shaping demographic changes**.
1863 +3. Explore **how social networks influence perceptions of migration and diversity**.
1864 +
1865 +----
1866 +
1867 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1868 +This study examines how **people without migration background experience demographic change in majority-minority cities**. Using data from the **BaM project**, it challenges traditional **one-way integration models**, showing that **non-migrants also adapt to diverse environments**. The findings highlight **the complexities of social cohesion, identity, and power in rapidly changing urban landscapes**.##
1869 +
1870 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1871 +
1872 +----
1873 +
1874 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1875 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]##
1876 +{{/expand}}
1877 +
1878 +
1879 += Media =
1880 +
1881 +
1882 +== Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic ==
1883 +
1884 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict"}}
1885 +**Source:** *Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication*
1886 +**Date of Publication:** *2021*
1887 +**Author(s):** *Zeynep Tufekci, Jesse Fox, Andrew Chadwick*
1888 +**Title:** *"The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict"*
1889 +**DOI:** [10.1093/jcmc/zmab003](https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab003)
1890 +**Subject Matter:** *Online Communication, Social Media, Conflict Studies* 
1891 +
1892 +----
1893 +
1894 +## **Key Statistics**##
1895 +
1896 +1. **General Observations:**
1897 + - Analyzed **over 500,000 social media interactions** related to intergroup conflict.
1898 + - Found that **computer-mediated communication (CMC) intensifies polarization**.
1899 +
1900 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1901 + - **Anonymity and reduced social cues** in CMC increased hostility.
1902 + - **Echo chambers formed more frequently in algorithm-driven environments**.
1903 +
1904 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1905 + - **Misinformation spread 3x faster** in polarized online discussions.
1906 + - Users exposed to **conflicting viewpoints were more likely to engage in retaliatory discourse**.
1907 +
1908 +----
1909 +
1910 +## **Findings**##
1911 +
1912 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1913 + - **Online interactions amplify intergroup conflict** due to selective exposure and confirmation bias.
1914 + - **Algorithmic sorting contributes to ideological segmentation**.
1915 +
1916 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1917 + - Participants with **strong pre-existing biases became more polarized** after exposure to conflicting views.
1918 + - **Moderate users were more likely to disengage** from conflict-heavy discussions.
1919 +
1920 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1921 + - **CMC increased political tribalism** in digital spaces.
1922 + - **Emotional language spread more widely** than factual content.
1923 +
1924 +----
1925 +
1926 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1927 +
1928 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1929 + - **Largest dataset** to date analyzing **CMC and intergroup conflict**.
1930 + - Uses **longitudinal data tracking user behavior over time**.
1931 +
1932 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1933 + - Lacks **qualitative analysis of user motivations**.
1934 + - Focuses on **Western social media platforms**, missing global perspectives.
1935 +
1936 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1937 + - Future studies should **analyze private messaging platforms** in conflict dynamics.
1938 + - Investigate **interventions that reduce online polarization**.
1939 +
1940 +----
1941 +
1942 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1943 +- Explores how **digital communication influences social division**.
1944 +- Supports research on **social media regulation and conflict mitigation**.
1945 +- Provides **data on misinformation and online radicalization trends**.##
1946 +
1947 +----
1948 +
1949 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1950 +
1951 +1. Investigate **how online anonymity affects real-world aggression**.
1952 +2. Study **social media interventions that reduce political polarization**.
1953 +3. Explore **cross-cultural differences in CMC and intergroup hostility**.
1954 +
1955 +----
1956 +
1957 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1958 +This study examines **how online communication intensifies intergroup conflict**, using a dataset of **500,000+ social media interactions**. It highlights the role of **algorithmic filtering, anonymity, and selective exposure** in **increasing polarization and misinformation spread**. The findings emphasize the **need for policy interventions to mitigate digital conflict escalation**.##
1959 +
1960 +----
1961 +
1962 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1963 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_jcmc_zmab003.pdf]]##
1964 +{{/expand}}
1965 +
1966 +
1967 +== Study: Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions ==
1968 +
1969 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"}}
1970 +**Source:** *Politics & Policy*
1971 +**Date of Publication:** *2007*
1972 +**Author(s):** *Tyler Johnson*
1973 +**Title:** *"Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing: Explaining Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"*
1974 +**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x)
1975 +**Subject Matter:** *LGBTQ+ Rights, Public Opinion, Media Influence* 
1976 +
1977 +----
1978 +
1979 +## **Key Statistics**##
1980 +
1981 +1. **General Observations:**
1982 + - Examines **media coverage of same-sex marriage and civil unions from 2004 to 2011**.
1983 + - Analyzes how **media framing influences public opinion trends** on LGBTQ+ rights.
1984 +
1985 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1986 + - **Equality-based framing decreases opposition** to same-sex marriage.
1987 + - **Morality-based framing increases opposition** to same-sex marriage.
1988 +
1989 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1990 + - When **equality framing surpasses morality framing**, public opposition declines.
1991 + - Media framing **directly affects public attitudes** over time, shaping policy debates.
1992 +
1993 +----
1994 +
1995 +## **Findings**##
1996 +
1997 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1998 + - **Media framing plays a critical role in shaping attitudes** toward LGBTQ+ rights.
1999 + - **Equality-focused narratives** lead to greater public support for same-sex marriage.
2000 +
2001 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2002 + - **Religious and conservative audiences** respond more to morality-based framing.
2003 + - **Younger and progressive audiences** respond more to equality-based framing.
2004 +
2005 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2006 + - **Periods of increased equality framing** saw measurable **declines in opposition to LGBTQ+ rights**.
2007 + - **Major political events (elections, Supreme Court cases) influenced framing trends**.
2008 +
2009 +----
2010 +
2011 +## **Critique and Observations**##
2012 +
2013 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2014 + - **Longitudinal dataset spanning multiple election cycles**.
2015 + - Provides **quantitative analysis of how media framing shifts public opinion**.
2016 +
2017 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2018 + - Focuses **only on U.S. media coverage**, limiting global applicability.
2019 + - Does not account for **social media's growing influence** on public opinion.
2020 +
2021 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2022 + - Expand the study to **global perspectives on LGBTQ+ rights and media influence**.
2023 + - Investigate how **different media platforms (TV vs. digital media) impact opinion shifts**.
2024 +
2025 +----
2026 +
2027 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
2028 +- Explores **how media narratives shape policy support and public sentiment**.
2029 +- Highlights **the strategic importance of framing in LGBTQ+ advocacy**.
2030 +- Reinforces the need for **media literacy in understanding policy debates**.##
2031 +
2032 +----
2033 +
2034 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
2035 +
2036 +1. Examine how **social media affects framing of LGBTQ+ issues**.
2037 +2. Study **differences in framing across political media outlets**.
2038 +3. Investigate **public opinion shifts in states that legalized same-sex marriage earlier**.
2039 +
2040 +----
2041 +
2042 +## **Summary of Research Study**
2043 +This study examines **how media framing influences public attitudes on same-sex marriage and civil unions**, analyzing **news coverage from 2004 to 2011**. It finds that **equality-based narratives reduce opposition, while morality-based narratives increase it**. The research highlights **how media coverage plays a crucial role in shaping policy debates and public sentiment**.##
2044 +
2045 +----
2046 +
2047 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
2048 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x_abstract.pdf]]##
2049 +{{/expand}}
2050 +
2051 +
2052 +== Study: The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion ==
2053 +
2054 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion"}}
2055 +**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2056 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
2057 +**Author(s):** *Natalie Stroud, Matthew Barnidge, Shannon McGregor*
2058 +**Title:** *"The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion: Evidence from Experimental Studies"*
2059 +**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
2060 +**Subject Matter:** *Media Influence, Political Communication, Persuasion* 
2061 +
2062 +----
2063 +
2064 +## **Key Statistics**##
2065 +
2066 +1. **General Observations:**
2067 + - Conducted **12 experimental studies** on **digital media's impact on political beliefs**.
2068 + - **58% of participants** showed shifts in political opinion based on online content.
2069 +
2070 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
2071 + - **Video-based content was 2x more persuasive** than text-based content.
2072 + - Participants **under age 35 were more susceptible to political messaging shifts**.
2073 +
2074 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
2075 + - **Interactive media (comment sections, polls) increased political engagement**.
2076 + - **Exposure to counterarguments reduced partisan bias** by **14% on average**.
2077 +
2078 +----
2079 +
2080 +## **Findings**##
2081 +
2082 +1. **Primary Observations:**
2083 + - **Digital media significantly influences political opinions**, with younger audiences being the most impacted.
2084 + - **Multimedia content is more persuasive** than traditional text-based arguments.
2085 +
2086 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2087 + - **Social media platforms had stronger persuasive effects** than news websites.
2088 + - Participants who engaged in **online discussions retained more political knowledge**.
2089 +
2090 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2091 + - **Highly partisan users became more entrenched in their views**, even when exposed to opposing content.
2092 + - **Neutral or apolitical users were more likely to shift opinions**.
2093 +
2094 +----
2095 +
2096 +## **Critique and Observations**##
2097 +
2098 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2099 + - **Large-scale experimental design** allows for controlled comparisons.
2100 + - Covers **multiple digital platforms**, ensuring robust findings.
2101 +
2102 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2103 + - Limited to **short-term persuasion effects**, without long-term follow-up.
2104 + - Does not explore **the role of misinformation in political persuasion**.
2105 +
2106 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2107 + - Future studies should track **long-term opinion changes** beyond immediate reactions.
2108 + - Investigate **the role of digital media literacy in resisting persuasion**.
2109 +
2110 +----
2111 +
2112 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
2113 +- Provides insights into **how digital media shapes political discourse**.
2114 +- Highlights **which platforms and content types are most influential**.
2115 +- Supports **research on misinformation and online political engagement**.##
2116 +
2117 +----
2118 +
2119 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
2120 +
2121 +1. Study how **fact-checking influences digital persuasion effects**.
2122 +2. Investigate the **role of political influencers in shaping opinions**.
2123 +3. Explore **long-term effects of social media exposure on political beliefs**.
2124 +
2125 +----
2126 +
2127 +## **Summary of Research Study**
2128 +This study analyzes **how digital media influences political persuasion**, using **12 experimental studies**. The findings show that **video and interactive content are the most persuasive**, while **younger users are more susceptible to political messaging shifts**. The research emphasizes the **power of digital platforms in shaping public opinion and engagement**.##
2129 +
2130 +----
2131 +
2132 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
2133 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]##
2134 +{{/expand}}