0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

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

From version 68.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/03/16 03:10
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 78.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/03/16 06:43
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -11,139 +11,844 @@
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 -{{toc/}}
15 15  
15 +
16 16  == Research Studies Repository ==
17 17  
18 += Genetics =
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
20 +== Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History ==
27 27  
28 -**Tags:** `Genetics` `Race & Ethnicity` `Biomedical Research`
22 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History"}}
23 +**Source:** *Nature*
24 +**Date of Publication:** *2009*
25 +**Author(s):** *David Reich, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Alkes L. Price, Lalji Singh*
26 +**Title:** *"Reconstructing Indian Population History"*
27 +**DOI:** [10.1038/nature08365](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08365)
28 +**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Population History, South Asian Ancestry* 
29 29  
30 -=== **Key Statistics** ===
30 +-----
31 31  
32 +## **Key Statistics**##
33 +
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%**.
35 + - Study analyzed **132 individuals from 25 diverse Indian groups**.
36 + - 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.
39 + - ANI ancestry is closely related to **Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans**.
40 + - ASI ancestry is **genetically distinct from ANI and East Asians**.
39 39  
40 -=== **Findings** ===
42 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
43 + - ANI ancestry ranges from **39% to 71%** across Indian groups.
44 + - **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.
46 +-----
44 44  
45 -=== **Relevance to Subproject** ===
48 +## **Findings**##
46 46  
47 -- Reinforces the reliability of **self-reported racial identity** in genetic research.
48 -- Highlights **policy considerations** in biomedical studies.
50 +1. **Primary Observations:**
51 + - The genetic landscape of India has been shaped by **thousands of years of endogamy**.
52 + - Groups with **only ASI ancestry no longer exist** in mainland India.
53 +
54 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
55 + - **Higher ANI ancestry in upper-caste and Indo-European-speaking groups**.
56 + - **Andaman Islanders** are unique in having **ASI ancestry without ANI influence**.
57 +
58 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
59 + - **Founder effects** have maintained allele frequency differences among Indian groups.
60 + - Predicts **higher incidence of recessive diseases** due to historical genetic isolation.
61 +
62 +-----
63 +
64 +## **Critique and Observations**##
65 +
66 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
67 + - **First large-scale genetic analysis** of Indian population history.
68 + - Introduces **new methods for ancestry estimation without direct ancestral reference groups**.
69 +
70 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
71 + - Limited **sample size relative to India's population diversity**.
72 + - Does not include **recent admixture events** post-colonial era.
73 +
74 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
75 + - Future research should **expand sampling across more Indian tribal groups**.
76 + - Use **whole-genome sequencing** for finer resolution of ancestry.
77 +
78 +-----
79 +
80 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
81 +- Provides a **genetic basis for caste and linguistic diversity** in India.
82 +- Highlights **founder effects and genetic drift** shaping South Asian populations.
83 +- Supports research on **medical genetics and disease risk prediction** in Indian populations.##
84 +
85 +-----
86 +
87 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
88 +
89 +1. Examine **genetic markers linked to disease susceptibility** in Indian subpopulations.
90 +2. Investigate the impact of **recent migration patterns on ANI-ASI ancestry distribution**.
91 +3. Study **gene flow between Indian populations and other global groups**.
92 +
93 +-----
94 +
95 +## **Summary of Research Study**
96 +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**.##
97 +
98 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
99 +
100 +-----
101 +
102 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
103 +[[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 ----
60 60  
61 -## **Key Statistics**
108 +== Study: The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations ==
109 +
110 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"}}
111 +**Source:** *Nature*
112 +**Date of Publication:** *2016*
113 +**Author(s):** *David Reich, Swapan Mallick, Heng Li, Mark Lipson, and others*
114 +**Title:** *"The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"*
115 +**DOI:** [10.1038/nature18964](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18964)
116 +**Subject Matter:** *Human Genetic Diversity, Population History, Evolutionary Genomics* 
117 +
118 +-----
119 +
120 +## **Key Statistics**##
121 +
62 62  1. **General Observations:**
63 - - [Statistical finding or observation]
64 - - [Statistical finding or observation]
123 + - Analyzed **high-coverage genome sequences of 300 individuals from 142 populations**.
124 + - 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]
127 + - Found **higher genetic diversity within African populations** compared to non-African groups.
128 + - 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]
131 + - Identified **5.8 million base pairs absent from the human reference genome**.
132 + - Estimated that **mutations have accumulated 5% faster in non-Africans than in Africans**.
71 71  
72 ----
134 +-----
73 73  
74 -## **Findings**
136 +## **Findings**##
137 +
75 75  1. **Primary Observations:**
76 - - [High-level findings or trends in the study]
139 + - **African populations harbor the greatest genetic diversity**, confirming an out-of-Africa dispersal model.
140 + - 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]
143 + - **Lower heterozygosity in non-Africans** due to founder effects from migration bottlenecks.
144 + - **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]
147 + - **Neanderthal ancestry is higher in East Asians than in Europeans**.
148 + - African hunter-gatherer groups show **deep population splits over 100,000 years ago**.
83 83  
84 ----
150 +-----
85 85  
86 -## **Critique and Observations**
152 +## **Critique and Observations**##
153 +
87 87  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
88 - - [Examples: strong methodology, large dataset, etc.]
155 + - **Largest global genetic dataset** outside of the 1000 Genomes Project.
156 + - 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.]
159 + - **Limited sample sizes for some populations**, restricting generalizability.
160 + - 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]
163 + - Future studies should include **ancient genomes** to improve demographic modeling.
164 + - Expand research into **how genetic variation affects health outcomes** across populations.
95 95  
96 ----
166 +-----
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.]
169 +- Provides **comprehensive data on human genetic diversity**, useful for **evolutionary studies**.
170 +- Supports research on **Neanderthal and Denisovan introgression** in modern human populations.
171 +- Enhances understanding of **genetic adaptation and disease susceptibility across groups**.##
101 101  
102 ----
173 +-----
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.]
175 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
107 107  
108 ----
177 +1. Investigate **functional consequences of genetic variation in underrepresented populations**.
178 +2. Study **how selection pressures shaped genetic diversity across different environments**.
179 +3. Explore **medical applications of population-specific genetic markers**.
109 109  
181 +-----
182 +
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]**.
184 +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.
186 +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 ----
188 +-----
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}}
191 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature18964.pdf]]##
192 +{{/expand}}
127 127  
194 +
195 +== Study: Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies ==
196 +
197 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"}}
198 +**Source:** *Nature Genetics*
199 +**Date of Publication:** *2015*
200 +**Author(s):** *Tinca J. C. Polderman, Beben Benyamin, Christiaan A. de Leeuw, Patrick F. Sullivan, Arjen van Bochoven, Peter M. Visscher, Danielle Posthuma*
201 +**Title:** *"Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"*
202 +**DOI:** [10.1038/ng.328](https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.328)
203 +**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Heritability, Twin Studies, Behavioral Science* 
204 +
205 +-----
206 +
207 +## **Key Statistics**##
208 +
209 +1. **General Observations:**
210 + - Analyzed **17,804 traits from 2,748 twin studies** published between **1958 and 2012**.
211 + - Included data from **14,558,903 twin pairs**, making it the largest meta-analysis on human heritability.
212 +
213 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
214 + - Found **49% average heritability** across all traits.
215 + - **69% of traits follow a simple additive genetic model**, meaning most variance is due to genes, not environment.
216 +
217 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
218 + - **Neurological, metabolic, and psychiatric traits** showed the highest heritability estimates.
219 + - Traits related to **social values and environmental interactions** had lower heritability estimates.
220 +
221 +-----
222 +
223 +## **Findings**##
224 +
225 +1. **Primary Observations:**
226 + - Across all traits, genetic factors play a significant role in individual differences.
227 + - The study contradicts models that **overestimate environmental effects in behavioral and cognitive traits**.
228 +
229 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
230 + - **Eye and brain-related traits showed the highest heritability (70-80%)**.
231 + - **Shared environmental effects were negligible (<10%) for most traits**.
232 +
233 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
234 + - Twin correlations suggest **limited evidence for strong non-additive genetic influences**.
235 + - The study highlights **missing heritability in complex traits**, which genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have yet to fully explain.
236 +
237 +-----
238 +
239 +## **Critique and Observations**##
240 +
241 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
242 + - **Largest-ever heritability meta-analysis**, covering nearly all published twin studies.
243 + - Provides a **comprehensive framework for understanding gene-environment contributions**.
244 +
245 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
246 + - **Underrepresentation of African, South American, and Asian twin cohorts**, limiting global generalizability.
247 + - Cannot **fully separate genetic influences from potential cultural/environmental confounders**.
248 +
249 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
250 + - Future research should use **whole-genome sequencing** for finer-grained heritability estimates.
251 + - **Incorporate non-Western populations** to assess global heritability trends.
252 +
253 +-----
254 +
255 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
256 +- Establishes a **quantitative benchmark for heritability across human traits**.
257 +- Reinforces **genetic influence on cognitive, behavioral, and physical traits**.
258 +- Highlights the need for **genome-wide studies to identify missing heritability**.##
259 +
260 +-----
261 +
262 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
263 +
264 +1. Investigate how **heritability estimates compare across different socioeconomic backgrounds**.
265 +2. Examine **gene-environment interactions in cognitive and psychiatric traits**.
266 +3. Explore **non-additive genetic effects on human traits using newer statistical models**.
267 +
268 +-----
269 +
270 +## **Summary of Research Study**
271 +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.##
272 +
273 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
274 +
275 +-----
276 +
277 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
278 +[[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  
282 +== Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease ==
132 132  
284 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease"}}
285 +**Source:** *Nature Reviews Genetics*
286 +**Date of Publication:** *2002*
287 +**Author(s):** *Sarah A. Tishkoff, Scott M. Williams*
288 +**Title:** *"Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease"*
289 +**DOI:** [10.1038/nrg865](https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg865)
290 +**Subject Matter:** *Population Genetics, Human Evolution, Complex Diseases* 
133 133  
134 ----
292 +-----
135 135  
136 -{{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"}}
294 +## **Key Statistics**##
295 +
296 +1. **General Observations:**
297 + - Africa harbors **the highest genetic diversity** of any region, making it key to understanding human evolution.
298 + - The study analyzes **genetic variation and linkage disequilibrium (LD) in African populations**.
299 +
300 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
301 + - African populations exhibit **greater genetic differentiation compared to non-Africans**.
302 + - **Migration and admixture** have shaped modern African genomes over the past **100,000 years**.
303 +
304 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
305 + - The **effective population size (Ne) of Africans** is higher than that of non-African populations.
306 + - LD blocks are **shorter in African genomes**, suggesting more historical recombination events.
307 +
308 +-----
309 +
310 +## **Findings**##
311 +
312 +1. **Primary Observations:**
313 + - African populations are the **most genetically diverse**, supporting the *Recent African Origin* hypothesis.
314 + - Genetic variation in African populations can **help fine-map complex disease genes**.
315 +
316 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
317 + - **West Africans exhibit higher genetic diversity** than East Africans due to differing migration patterns.
318 + - Populations such as **San hunter-gatherers show deep genetic divergence**.
319 +
320 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
321 + - Admixture in African Americans includes **West African and European genetic contributions**.
322 + - SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) diversity in African genomes **exceeds that of non-African groups**.
323 +
324 +-----
325 +
326 +## **Critique and Observations**##
327 +
328 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
329 + - Provides **comprehensive genetic analysis** of diverse African populations.
330 + - Highlights **how genetic diversity impacts health disparities and disease risks**.
331 +
332 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
333 + - Many **African populations remain understudied**, limiting full understanding of diversity.
334 + - Focuses more on genetic variation than on **specific disease mechanisms**.
335 +
336 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
337 + - Expand research into **underrepresented African populations**.
338 + - Integrate **whole-genome sequencing for a more detailed evolutionary timeline**.
339 +
340 +-----
341 +
342 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
343 +- Supports **genetic models of human evolution** and the **out-of-Africa hypothesis**.
344 +- Reinforces **Africa’s key role in disease gene mapping and precision medicine**.
345 +- Provides insight into **historical migration patterns and their genetic impact**.##
346 +
347 +-----
348 +
349 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
350 +
351 +1. Investigate **genetic adaptations to local environments within Africa**.
352 +2. Study **the role of African genetic diversity in disease resistance**.
353 +3. Expand research on **how ancient migration patterns shaped modern genetic structure**.
354 +
355 +-----
356 +
357 +## **Summary of Research Study**
358 +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**.##
359 +
360 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
361 +
362 +-----
363 +
364 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
365 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nrg865MODERN.pdf]]##
366 +{{/expand}}
367 +
368 +
369 +== Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA ==
370 +
371 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA"}}
372 +**Source:** *bioRxiv Preprint*
373 +**Date of Publication:** *September 15, 2024*
374 +**Author(s):** *Ali Akbari, Alison R. Barton, Steven Gazal, Zheng Li, Mohammadreza Kariminejad, et al.*
375 +**Title:** *"Pervasive findings of directional selection realize the promise of ancient DNA to elucidate human adaptation"*
376 +**DOI:** [10.1101/2024.09.14.613021](https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.14.613021)
377 +**Subject Matter:** *Genomics, Evolutionary Biology, Natural Selection* 
378 +
379 +-----
380 +
381 +## **Key Statistics**##
382 +
383 +1. **General Observations:**
384 + - Study analyzes **8,433 ancient individuals** from the past **14,000 years**.
385 + - Identifies **347 genome-wide significant loci** showing strong selection.
386 +
387 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
388 + - Examines **West Eurasian populations** and their genetic evolution.
389 + - Tracks **changes in allele frequencies over millennia**.
390 +
391 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
392 + - **10,000 years of directional selection** affected metabolic, immune, and cognitive traits.
393 + - **Strong selection signals** found for traits like **skin pigmentation, cognitive function, and immunity**.
394 +
395 +-----
396 +
397 +## **Findings**##
398 +
399 +1. **Primary Observations:**
400 + - **Hundreds of alleles have been subject to directional selection** over recent millennia.
401 + - Traits like **immune function, metabolism, and cognitive performance** show strong selection.
402 +
403 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
404 + - Selection pressure on **energy storage genes** supports the **Thrifty Gene Hypothesis**.
405 + - **Cognitive performance-related alleles** have undergone selection, but their historical advantages remain unclear.
406 +
407 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
408 + - **Celiac disease risk allele** increased from **0% to 20%** in 4,000 years.
409 + - **Blood type B frequency rose from 0% to 8% in 6,000 years**.
410 + - **Tuberculosis risk allele** fluctuated from **2% to 9% over 3,000 years before declining**.
411 +
412 +-----
413 +
414 +## **Critique and Observations**##
415 +
416 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
417 + - **Largest dataset to date** on natural selection in human ancient DNA.
418 + - Uses **direct allele frequency tracking instead of indirect measures**.
419 +
420 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
421 + - Findings **may not translate directly** to modern populations.
422 + - **Unclear whether observed selection pressures persist today**.
423 +
424 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
425 + - Expanding research to **other global populations** to assess universal trends.
426 + - Investigating **long-term evolutionary trade-offs of selected alleles**.
427 +
428 +-----
429 +
430 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
431 +- Provides **direct evidence of long-term genetic adaptation** in human populations.
432 +- Supports theories on **polygenic selection shaping human cognition, metabolism, and immunity**.
433 +- Highlights **how past selection pressures may still influence modern health and disease prevalence**.##
434 +
435 +-----
436 +
437 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
438 +
439 +1. Examine **selection patterns in non-European populations** for comparison.
440 +2. Investigate **how environmental and cultural shifts influenced genetic selection**.
441 +3. Explore **the genetic basis of traits linked to past and present-day human survival**.
442 +
443 +-----
444 +
445 +## **Summary of Research Study**
446 +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**.##
447 +
448 +-----
449 +
450 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
451 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1101_2024.09.14.613021doi_.pdf]]##
452 +{{/expand}}
453 +
454 +== Study: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age ==
455 +
456 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"}}
457 +**Source:** *Twin Research and Human Genetics (Cambridge University Press)*
458 +**Date of Publication:** *2013*
459 +**Author(s):** *Thomas J. Bouchard Jr.*
460 +**Title:** *"The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"*
461 +**DOI:** [10.1017/thg.2013.54](https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2013.54)
462 +**Subject Matter:** *Intelligence, Heritability, Developmental Psychology* 
463 +
464 +-----
465 +
466 +## **Key Statistics**##
467 +
468 +1. **General Observations:**
469 + - The study documents how the **heritability of IQ increases with age**, reaching an asymptote at **0.80 by adulthood**.
470 + - Analysis is based on **longitudinal twin and adoption studies**.
471 +
472 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
473 + - Shared environmental influence on IQ **declines with age**, reaching **0.10 in adulthood**.
474 + - Monozygotic twins show **increasing genetic similarity in IQ over time**, while dizygotic twins become **less concordant**.
475 +
476 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
477 + - Data from the **Louisville Longitudinal Twin Study and cross-national twin samples** support findings.
478 + - IQ stability over time is **influenced more by genetics than by shared environmental factors**.
479 +
480 +-----
481 +
482 +## **Findings**##
483 +
484 +1. **Primary Observations:**
485 + - Intelligence heritability **strengthens throughout development**, contrary to early environmental models.
486 + - Shared environmental effects **decrease by late adolescence**, emphasizing **genetic influence in adulthood**.
487 +
488 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
489 + - Studies from **Scotland, Netherlands, and the US** show **consistent patterns of increasing heritability with age**.
490 + - Findings hold across **varied socio-economic and educational backgrounds**.
491 +
492 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
493 + - Longitudinal adoption studies show **declining impact of adoptive parental influence on IQ** as children age.
494 + - Cross-sectional twin data confirm **higher IQ correlations for monozygotic twins in adulthood**.
495 +
496 +-----
497 +
498 +## **Critique and Observations**##
499 +
500 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
501 + - **Robust dataset covering multiple twin and adoption studies over decades**.
502 + - **Clear, replicable trend** demonstrating the increasing role of genetics in intelligence.
503 +
504 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
505 + - Findings apply primarily to **Western industrialized nations**, limiting generalizability.
506 + - **Lack of neurobiological mechanisms** explaining how genes express their influence over time.
507 +
508 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
509 + - Future research should investigate **gene-environment interactions in cognitive aging**.
510 + - Examine **heritability trends in non-Western populations** to determine cross-cultural consistency.
511 +
512 +-----
513 +
514 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
515 +- Provides **strong evidence for the genetic basis of intelligence**.
516 +- Highlights the **diminishing role of shared environment in cognitive development**.
517 +- Supports research on **cognitive aging and heritability across the lifespan**.##
518 +
519 +-----
520 +
521 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
522 +
523 +1. Investigate **neurogenetic pathways underlying IQ development**.
524 +2. Examine **how education and socioeconomic factors interact with genetic IQ influences**.
525 +3. Study **heritability trends in aging populations and cognitive decline**.
526 +
527 +-----
528 +
529 +## **Summary of Research Study**
530 +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**.##
531 +
532 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
533 +
534 +-----
535 +
536 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
537 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1017_thg.2013.54.pdf]]##
538 +{{/expand}}
539 +
540 +== Study: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications ==
541 +
542 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"}}
543 +**Source:** *Medical Hypotheses (Elsevier)*
544 +**Date of Publication:** *2010*
545 +**Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley*
546 +**Title:** *"Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"*
547 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046)
548 +**Subject Matter:** *Human Taxonomy, Evolutionary Biology, Anthropology* 
549 +
550 +-----
551 +
552 +## **Key Statistics**##
553 +
554 +1. **General Observations:**
555 + - The study argues that **Homo sapiens is polytypic**, meaning it consists of multiple subspecies rather than a single monotypic species.
556 + - Examines **genetic diversity, morphological variation, and evolutionary lineage** in humans.
557 +
558 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
559 + - Discusses **four primary definitions of race/subspecies**: Essentialist, Taxonomic, Population-based, and Lineage-based.
560 + - Suggests that **human heterozygosity levels are comparable to species that are classified as polytypic**.
561 +
562 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
563 + - The study evaluates **FST values (genetic differentiation measure)** and argues that human genetic differentiation is comparable to that of recognized subspecies in other species.
564 + - Considers **phylogenetic species concepts** in defining human variation.
565 +
566 +-----
567 +
568 +## **Findings**##
569 +
570 +1. **Primary Observations:**
571 + - Proposes that **modern human populations meet biological criteria for subspecies classification**.
572 + - Highlights **medical and evolutionary implications** of human taxonomic diversity.
573 +
574 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
575 + - Discusses **how race concepts evolved over time** in biological sciences.
576 + - Compares **human diversity with that of other primates** such as chimpanzees and gorillas.
577 +
578 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
579 + - Evaluates how **genetic markers correlate with population structure**.
580 + - Addresses the **controversy over race classification in modern anthropology**.
581 +
582 +-----
583 +
584 +## **Critique and Observations**##
585 +
586 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
587 + - Uses **comparative species analysis** to assess human classification.
588 + - Provides a **biological perspective** on the race concept, moving beyond social constructivism arguments.
589 +
590 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
591 + - Controversial topic with **strong opposing views in anthropology and genetics**.
592 + - **Relies on broad genetic trends**, but does not analyze individual-level genetic variation in depth.
593 +
594 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
595 + - Further research should **incorporate whole-genome studies** to refine subspecies classifications.
596 + - Investigate **how admixture affects taxonomic classification over time**.
597 +
598 +-----
599 +
600 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
601 +- Contributes to discussions on **evolutionary taxonomy and species classification**.
602 +- Provides evidence on **genetic differentiation among human populations**.
603 +- Highlights **historical and contemporary scientific debates on race and human variation**.##
604 +
605 +-----
606 +
607 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
608 +
609 +1. Examine **FST values in modern and ancient human populations**.
610 +2. Investigate how **adaptive evolution influences population differentiation**.
611 +3. Explore **the impact of genetic diversity on medical treatments and disease susceptibility**.
612 +
613 +-----
614 +
615 +## **Summary of Research Study**
616 +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**.##
617 +
618 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
619 +
620 +-----
621 +
622 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
623 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.mehy.2009.07.046.pdf]]##
624 +{{/expand}}
625 +
626 +
627 +== Study: Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media ==
628 +
629 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"}}
630 +**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
631 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
632 +**Author(s):** *Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, Thomas R. Coyle*
633 +**Title:** *"Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"*
634 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406)
635 +**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Intelligence Research, Expert Analysis* 
636 +
637 +-----
638 +
639 +## **Key Statistics**##
640 +
641 +1. **General Observations:**
642 + - Survey of **102 experts** on intelligence research and public discourse.
643 + - Evaluated experts' backgrounds, political affiliations, and views on controversial topics in intelligence research.
644 +
645 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
646 + - **90% of experts were from Western countries**, and **83% were male**.
647 + - Political spectrum ranged from **54% left-liberal, 24% conservative**, with significant ideological influences on views.
648 +
649 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
650 + - Experts rated media coverage of intelligence research as **poor (avg. 3.1 on a 9-point scale)**.
651 + - **50% of experts attributed US Black-White IQ differences to genetic factors, 50% to environmental factors**.
652 +
653 +-----
654 +
655 +## **Findings**##
656 +
657 +1. **Primary Observations:**
658 + - Experts overwhelmingly support **the g-factor theory of intelligence**.
659 + - **Heritability of intelligence** was widely accepted, though views differed on race and group differences.
660 +
661 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
662 + - **Left-leaning experts were more likely to reject genetic explanations for group IQ differences**.
663 + - **Right-leaning experts tended to favor a stronger role for genetic factors** in intelligence disparities.
664 +
665 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
666 + - The study compared **media coverage of intelligence research** with expert opinions.
667 + - Found a **disconnect between journalists and intelligence researchers**, especially regarding politically sensitive issues.
668 +
669 +-----
670 +
671 +## **Critique and Observations**##
672 +
673 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
674 + - **Largest expert survey on intelligence research** to date.
675 + - Provides insight into **how political orientation influences scientific perspectives**.
676 +
677 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
678 + - **Sample primarily from Western countries**, limiting global perspectives.
679 + - Self-selection bias may skew responses toward **those more willing to engage with controversial topics**.
680 +
681 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
682 + - Future studies should include **a broader range of global experts**.
683 + - Additional research needed on **media biases and misrepresentation of intelligence research**.
684 +
685 +-----
686 +
687 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
688 +- Provides insight into **expert consensus and division on intelligence research**.
689 +- Highlights the **role of media bias** in shaping public perception of intelligence science.
690 +- Useful for understanding **the intersection of science, politics, and public discourse** on intelligence research.##
691 +
692 +-----
693 +
694 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
695 +
696 +1. Examine **cross-national differences** in expert opinions on intelligence.
697 +2. Investigate how **media bias impacts public understanding of intelligence research**.
698 +3. Conduct follow-up studies with **a more diverse expert pool** to test findings.
699 +
700 +-----
701 +
702 +## **Summary of Research Study**
703 +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**.##
704 +
705 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
706 +
707 +-----
708 +
709 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
710 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2019.101406.pdf]]##
711 +{{/expand}}
712 +
713 +
714 +== Study: A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation ==
715 +
716 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"}}
717 +**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
718 +**Date of Publication:** *2015*
719 +**Author(s):** *Davide Piffer*
720 +**Title:** *"A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"*
721 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008)
722 +**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Intelligence, GWAS, Population Differences* 
723 +
724 +-----
725 +
726 +## **Key Statistics**##
727 +
728 +1. **General Observations:**
729 + - Study analyzed **genome-wide association studies (GWAS) hits** linked to intelligence.
730 + - Found a **strong correlation (r = .91) between polygenic intelligence scores and national IQ levels**.
731 +
732 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
733 + - Factor analysis of **9 intelligence-associated alleles** revealed a metagene correlated with **country IQ (r = .86)**.
734 + - **Allele frequencies varied significantly by continent**, aligning with observed population differences in cognitive ability.
735 +
736 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
737 + - GWAS intelligence SNPs predicted **IQ levels more strongly than random genetic markers**.
738 + - Genetic differentiation (Fst values) showed that **selection pressure, rather than drift, influenced intelligence-related allele distributions**.
739 +
740 +-----
741 +
742 +## **Findings**##
743 +
744 +1. **Primary Observations:**
745 + - Intelligence-associated SNP frequencies correlate **highly with national IQ levels**.
746 + - Genetic selection for intelligence appears **stronger than selection for height-related genes**.
747 +
748 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
749 + - **East Asian populations** exhibited the **highest frequencies of intelligence-associated alleles**.
750 + - **African populations** showed lower frequencies compared to European and East Asian populations.
751 +
752 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
753 + - Polygenic scores using **intelligence-related alleles significantly outperformed random SNPs** in predicting IQ.
754 + - Selection pressures **may explain differences in global intelligence distribution** beyond genetic drift effects.
755 +
756 +-----
757 +
758 +## **Critique and Observations**##
759 +
760 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
761 + - **Comprehensive genetic analysis** of intelligence-linked SNPs.
762 + - Uses **multiple statistical methods (factor analysis, Fst analysis) to confirm results**.
763 +
764 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
765 + - **Correlation does not imply causation**; factors beyond genetics influence intelligence.
766 + - **Limited number of GWAS-identified intelligence alleles**—future studies may identify more.
767 +
768 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
769 + - Larger **cross-population GWAS studies** needed to validate findings.
770 + - Investigate **non-genetic contributors to IQ variance** in addition to genetic factors.
771 +
772 +-----
773 +
774 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
775 +- Supports research on **genetic influences on intelligence at a population level**.
776 +- Aligns with broader discussions on **cognitive genetics and natural selection effects**.
777 +- Provides a **quantitative framework for analyzing polygenic selection in intelligence studies**.##
778 +
779 +-----
780 +
781 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
782 +
783 +1. Conduct **expanded GWAS studies** including diverse populations.
784 +2. Investigate **gene-environment interactions influencing intelligence**.
785 +3. Explore **historical selection pressures shaping intelligence-related alleles**.
786 +
787 +-----
788 +
789 +## **Summary of Research Study**
790 +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.  ##
791 +
792 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
793 +
794 +-----
795 +
796 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
797 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2015.08.008.pdf]]##
798 +{{/expand}}
799 +
800 +== Study: Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding ==
801 +
802 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Click here to expand details"}}
803 +**Source:** Journal of Genetic Epidemiology
804 +**Date of Publication:** 2024-01-15
805 +**Author(s):** Smith et al.
806 +**Title:** "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies"
807 +**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235](https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235)
808 +**Subject Matter:** Genetics, Social Science 
809 +
810 +**Tags:** `Genetics` `Race & Ethnicity` `Biomedical Research`
811 +
812 +=== **Key Statistics** ===
813 +
814 +1. **General Observations:**
815 + - A near-perfect alignment between self-identified race/ethnicity (SIRE) and genetic ancestry was observed.
816 + - Misclassification rate: **0.14%**.
817 +
818 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
819 + - Four groups analyzed: **White, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic**.
820 + - Hispanic genetic clusters showed significant European and Native American lineage.
821 +
822 +=== **Findings** ===
823 +
824 +- Self-identified race strongly aligns with genetic ancestry.
825 +- Minor discrepancies exist but do not significantly impact classification.
826 +
827 +=== **Relevance to Subproject** ===
828 +
829 +- Reinforces the reliability of **self-reported racial identity** in genetic research.
830 +- Highlights **policy considerations** in biomedical studies.
831 +{{/expand}}
832 +
833 +
834 +-----
835 +
836 += Dating and Interpersonal Relationships =
837 +
838 +== Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018 ==
839 +
840 +{{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"}}
137 137  **Source:** *JAMA Network Open*
138 138  **Date of Publication:** *2020*
139 139  **Author(s):** *Ueda P, Mercer CH, Ghaznavi C, Herbenick D.*
140 140  **Title:** *"Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"*
141 141  **DOI:** [10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833)
142 -**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Sexual Behavior, Demography*
846 +**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Sexual Behavior, Demography* 
143 143  
144 ----
848 +-----
145 145  
146 -## **Key Statistics**
850 +## **Key Statistics**##
851 +
147 147  1. **General Observations:**
148 148   - Study analyzed **General Social Survey (2000-2018)** data.
149 149   - Found **declining trends in sexual activity** among young adults.
... ... @@ -156,9 +156,10 @@
156 156   - Frequency of sexual activity decreased by **8-10%** over the studied period.
157 157   - Number of sexual partners remained **relatively stable** despite declining activity rates.
158 158  
159 ----
864 +-----
160 160  
161 -## **Findings**
866 +## **Findings**##
867 +
162 162  1. **Primary Observations:**
163 163   - A significant decline in sexual frequency, especially among **younger men**.
164 164   - Shifts in relationship dynamics and economic stressors may contribute to the trend.
... ... @@ -171,9 +171,10 @@
171 171   - **Mental health and employment status** were correlated with decreased activity.
172 172   - Social factors such as **screen time and digital entertainment consumption** are potential contributors.
173 173  
174 ----
880 +-----
175 175  
176 -## **Critique and Observations**
882 +## **Critique and Observations**##
883 +
177 177  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
178 178   - **Large sample size** from a nationally representative dataset.
179 179   - **Longitudinal design** enables trend analysis over time.
... ... @@ -186,26 +186,27 @@
186 186   - Further studies should incorporate **qualitative data** on behavioral shifts.
187 187   - Additional factors such as **economic shifts and social media usage** need exploration.
188 188  
189 ----
896 +-----
190 190  
191 191  ## **Relevance to Subproject**
192 192  - Provides evidence on **changing demographic behaviors** in relation to relationships and social interactions.
193 -- Highlights the role of **mental health, employment, and societal changes** in personal behaviors.
900 +- Highlights the role of **mental health, employment, and societal changes** in personal behaviors.##
194 194  
195 ----
902 +-----
196 196  
197 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
904 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
905 +
198 198  1. Investigate the **impact of digital media consumption** on relationship dynamics.
199 199  2. Examine **regional and cultural differences** in sexual activity trends.
200 200  
201 ----
909 +-----
202 202  
203 203  ## **Summary of Research Study**
204 -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.
912 +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.  ##
205 205  
206 206  This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study's contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
207 207  
208 ----
916 +-----
209 209  
210 210  ## **📄 Download Full Study**
211 211  {{velocity}}
... ... @@ -215,25 +215,111 @@
215 215  [[Download>>attach:$filename]]
216 216  #else
217 217  {{html}}<span style="color: red; font-weight: bold;">🚨 PDF Not Available 🚨</span>{{/html}}
218 -#end
219 -{{/velocity}}
926 +#end {{/velocity}}##
927 +{{/expand}}
220 220  
929 +
930 +== Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis ==
931 +
932 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"}}
933 +**Source:** *Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica*
934 +**Date of Publication:** *2012*
935 +**Author(s):** *Ravisha M. Srinivasjois, Shreya Shah, Prakesh S. Shah, Knowledge Synthesis Group on Determinants of Preterm/LBW Births*
936 +**Title:** *"Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"*
937 +**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x)
938 +**Subject Matter:** *Neonatal Health, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Racial Disparities* 
939 +
940 +-----
941 +
942 +## **Key Statistics**##
943 +
944 +1. **General Observations:**
945 + - Meta-analysis of **26,335,596 singleton births** from eight studies.
946 + - **Higher risk of adverse birth outcomes in biracial couples** than White couples, but lower than Black couples.
947 +
948 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
949 + - **Maternal race had a stronger influence than paternal race** on birth outcomes.
950 + - **Black mother–White father (BMWF) couples** had a higher risk than **White mother–Black father (WMBF) couples**.
951 +
952 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
953 + - **Adjusted Odds Ratios (aORs) for key outcomes:**
954 + - **Low birthweight (LBW):** WMBF (1.21), BMWF (1.75), Black mother–Black father (BMBF) (2.08).
955 + - **Preterm births (PTB):** WMBF (1.17), BMWF (1.37), BMBF (1.78).
956 + - **Stillbirths:** WMBF (1.43), BMWF (1.51), BMBF (1.85).
957 +
958 +-----
959 +
960 +## **Findings**##
961 +
962 +1. **Primary Observations:**
963 + - **Biracial couples face a gradient of risk**: higher than White couples but lower than Black couples.
964 + - **Maternal race plays a more significant role** in pregnancy outcomes.
965 +
966 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
967 + - **Black mothers (regardless of paternal race) had the highest risk of LBW and PTB**.
968 + - **White mothers with Black fathers had a lower risk** than Black mothers with White fathers.
969 +
970 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
971 + - The **weathering hypothesis** suggests that **long-term stress exposure** contributes to higher adverse birth risks in Black mothers.
972 + - **Genetic and environmental factors** may interact to influence birth outcomes.
973 +
974 +-----
975 +
976 +## **Critique and Observations**##
977 +
978 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
979 + - **Largest meta-analysis** on racial disparities in birth outcomes.
980 + - Uses **adjusted statistical models** to account for confounding variables.
981 +
982 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
983 + - Data limited to **Black-White biracial couples**, excluding other racial groups.
984 + - **Socioeconomic and healthcare access factors** not fully explored.
985 +
986 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
987 + - Future studies should examine **Asian, Hispanic, and Indigenous biracial couples**.
988 + - Investigate **long-term health effects on infants from biracial pregnancies**.
989 +
990 +-----
991 +
992 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
993 +- Provides **critical insights into racial disparities** in maternal and infant health.
994 +- Supports **research on genetic and environmental influences on neonatal health**.
995 +- Highlights **how maternal race plays a more significant role than paternal race** in birth outcomes.##
996 +
997 +-----
998 +
999 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1000 +
1001 +1. Investigate **the role of prenatal care quality in mitigating racial disparities**.
1002 +2. Examine **how social determinants of health impact biracial pregnancy outcomes**.
1003 +3. Explore **gene-environment interactions influencing birthweight and prematurity risks**.
1004 +
1005 +-----
1006 +
1007 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1008 +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**.##
1009 +
1010 +-----
1011 +
1012 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1013 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1600-0412.2012.01501.xAbstract.pdf]]##
221 221  {{/expand}}
222 222  
223 -{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
224 224  
1017 +== Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness ==
225 225  
226 -{{expand title="Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness" expanded="false"}}
1019 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"}}
227 227  **Source:** *Current Psychology*
228 228  **Date of Publication:** *2024*
229 229  **Author(s):** *Brandon Sparks, Alexandra M. Zidenberg, Mark E. Olver*
230 230  **Title:** *"One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"*
231 231  **DOI:** [10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z)
232 -**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Mental Health, Social Isolation*
1025 +**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Mental Health, Social Isolation* 
233 233  
234 ----
1027 +-----
235 235  
236 -## **Key Statistics**
1029 +## **Key Statistics**##
1030 +
237 237  1. **General Observations:**
238 238   - Study analyzed **67 self-identified incels** and **103 non-incel men**.
239 239   - Incels reported **higher loneliness and lower social support** compared to non-incels.
... ... @@ -246,9 +246,10 @@
246 246   - 95% of incels in the study reported **having depression**, with 38% receiving a formal diagnosis.
247 247   - **Higher externalization of blame** was linked to stronger incel identification.
248 248  
249 ----
1043 +-----
250 250  
251 -## **Findings**
1045 +## **Findings**##
1046 +
252 252  1. **Primary Observations:**
253 253   - Incels experience **heightened rejection sensitivity and loneliness**.
254 254   - Lack of social support correlates with **worse mental health outcomes**.
... ... @@ -261,9 +261,10 @@
261 261   - Incels **engaged in fewer positive coping mechanisms** such as emotional support or positive reframing.
262 262   - Instead, they relied on **solitary coping strategies**, worsening their isolation.
263 263  
264 ----
1059 +-----
265 265  
266 -## **Critique and Observations**
1061 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1062 +
267 267  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
268 268   - **First quantitative study** on incels’ social isolation and mental health.
269 269   - **Robust sample size** and validated psychological measures.
... ... @@ -276,37 +276,386 @@
276 276   - Future studies should **compare incel forum users vs. non-users**.
277 277   - Investigate **potential intervention strategies** for social integration.
278 278  
279 ----
1075 +-----
280 280  
281 281  ## **Relevance to Subproject**
282 282  - Highlights **mental health vulnerabilities** within the incel community.
283 283  - Supports research on **loneliness, attachment styles, and social dominance orientation**.
284 -- Examines how **peer rejection influences self-perceived mate value**.
1080 +- Examines how **peer rejection influences self-perceived mate value**.##
285 285  
286 ----
1082 +-----
287 287  
288 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1084 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1085 +
289 289  1. Explore how **online community participation** affects incel mental health.
290 290  2. Investigate **cognitive biases** influencing self-perceived rejection among incels.
291 291  3. Assess **therapeutic interventions** to address incel social isolation.
292 292  
293 ----
1090 +-----
294 294  
295 295  ## **Summary of Research Study**
296 -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**.
1093 +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**.##
297 297  
298 298  This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
299 299  
300 ----
1097 +-----
301 301  
302 302  ## **📄 Download Full Study**
303 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1007_s12144-023-04275-z.pdf]]
1100 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1007_s12144-023-04275-z.pdf]]##
1101 +{{/expand}}
304 304  
1103 +
1104 += Crime and Substance Abuse =
1105 +
1106 +== Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys ==
1107 +
1108 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"}}
1109 +**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1110 +**Date of Publication:** *2003*
1111 +**Author(s):** *Timothy P. Johnson, Phillip J. Bowman*
1112 +**Title:** *"Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"*
1113 +**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120023394](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120023394)
1114 +**Subject Matter:** *Survey Methodology, Racial Disparities, Substance Use Research* 
1115 +
1116 +-----
1117 +
1118 +## **Key Statistics**##
1119 +
1120 +1. **General Observations:**
1121 + - Study examined **how racial and cultural factors influence self-reported substance use data**.
1122 + - Analyzed **36 empirical studies from 1977–2003** on survey reliability across racial/ethnic groups.
1123 +
1124 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1125 + - Black and Latino respondents **were more likely to underreport drug use** compared to White respondents.
1126 + - **Cultural stigma and distrust in research institutions** affected self-report accuracy.
1127 +
1128 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1129 + - **Surveys using biological validation (urinalysis, hair tests) revealed underreporting trends**.
1130 + - **Higher recantation rates** (denying past drug use) were observed among minority respondents.
1131 +
1132 +-----
1133 +
1134 +## **Findings**##
1135 +
1136 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1137 + - Racial/ethnic disparities in **substance use reporting bias survey-based research**.
1138 + - **Social desirability and cultural norms impact data reliability**.
1139 +
1140 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1141 + - White respondents were **more likely to overreport** substance use.
1142 + - Black and Latino respondents **had higher recantation rates**, particularly in face-to-face interviews.
1143 +
1144 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1145 + - Mode of survey administration **significantly influenced reporting accuracy**.
1146 + - **Self-administered surveys produced more reliable data than interviewer-administered surveys**.
1147 +
1148 +-----
1149 +
1150 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1151 +
1152 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1153 + - **Comprehensive review of 36 studies** on measurement error in substance use reporting.
1154 + - Identifies **systemic biases affecting racial/ethnic survey reliability**.
1155 +
1156 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1157 + - Relies on **secondary data analysis**, limiting direct experimental control.
1158 + - Does not explore **how measurement error impacts policy decisions**.
1159 +
1160 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1161 + - Future research should **incorporate mixed-method approaches** (qualitative & quantitative).
1162 + - Investigate **how survey design can reduce racial reporting disparities**.
1163 +
1164 +-----
1165 +
1166 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1167 +- Supports research on **racial disparities in self-reported health behaviors**.
1168 +- Highlights **survey methodology issues that impact substance use epidemiology**.
1169 +- Provides insights for **improving data accuracy in public health research**.##
1170 +
1171 +-----
1172 +
1173 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1174 +
1175 +1. Investigate **how survey design impacts racial disparities in self-reported health data**.
1176 +2. Study **alternative data collection methods (biometric validation, passive data tracking)**.
1177 +3. Explore **the role of social stigma in self-reported health behaviors**.
1178 +
1179 +-----
1180 +
1181 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1182 +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**.##
1183 +
1184 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1185 +
1186 +-----
1187 +
1188 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1189 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120023394.pdf]]##
305 305  {{/expand}}
306 306  
307 -{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
1192 +== Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program ==
308 308  
309 -{{expand title="Study: Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults" expanded="false"}} Source: Addictive Behaviors
1194 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"}}
1195 +**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1196 +**Date of Publication:** *2002*
1197 +**Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
1198 +**Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
1199 +**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
1200 +**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts* 
1201 +
1202 +-----
1203 +
1204 +## **Key Statistics**##
1205 +
1206 +1. **General Observations:**
1207 + - Study examined **drug treatment court success rates** among first-time offenders.
1208 + - Strongest predictors of **successful completion were employment status and race**.
1209 +
1210 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1211 + - Individuals with **stable jobs were more likely to complete the program**.
1212 + - **Black participants had lower success rates**, suggesting potential systemic disparities.
1213 +
1214 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1215 + - **Education level was positively correlated** with program completion.
1216 + - Frequency of **drug use before enrollment affected treatment outcomes**.
1217 +
1218 +-----
1219 +
1220 +## **Findings**##
1221 +
1222 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1223 + - **Social stability factors** (employment, education) were key to treatment success.
1224 + - **Race and pre-existing substance use patterns** influenced completion rates.
1225 +
1226 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1227 + - White offenders had **higher completion rates** than Black offenders.
1228 + - Drug court success was **higher for those with lower initial drug use frequency**.
1229 +
1230 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1231 + - **Individuals with strong social ties were more likely to finish the program**.
1232 + - Success rates were **significantly higher for participants with case management support**.
1233 +
1234 +-----
1235 +
1236 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1237 +
1238 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1239 + - **First empirical study on drug court program success factors**.
1240 + - Uses **longitudinal data** for post-treatment analysis.
1241 +
1242 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1243 + - Lacks **qualitative data on personal motivation and treatment engagement**.
1244 + - Focuses on **short-term program success** without tracking **long-term relapse rates**.
1245 +
1246 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1247 + - Future research should examine **racial disparities in drug court outcomes**.
1248 + - Study **how community resources impact long-term recovery**.
1249 +
1250 +-----
1251 +
1252 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1253 +- Provides insight into **what factors contribute to drug court program success**.
1254 +- Highlights **racial disparities in criminal justice-based rehabilitation programs**.
1255 +- Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.##
1256 +
1257 +-----
1258 +
1259 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1260 +
1261 +1. Investigate **the role of mental health in drug court success rates**.
1262 +2. Assess **long-term relapse prevention strategies post-treatment**.
1263 +3. Explore **alternative diversion programs beyond traditional drug courts**.
1264 +
1265 +-----
1266 +
1267 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1268 +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**.##
1269 +
1270 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1271 +
1272 +-----
1273 +
1274 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1275 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120014424.pdf]]##
1276 +{{/expand}}
1277 +
1278 +== Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys ==
1279 +
1280 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"}}
1281 +**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1282 +**Date of Publication:** *2003*
1283 +**Author(s):** *Timothy P. Johnson, Phillip J. Bowman*
1284 +**Title:** *"Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"*
1285 +**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120023394](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120023394)
1286 +**Subject Matter:** *Survey Methodology, Racial Disparities, Substance Use Research* 
1287 +
1288 +-----
1289 +
1290 +## **Key Statistics**##
1291 +
1292 +1. **General Observations:**
1293 + - Study examined **how racial and cultural factors influence self-reported substance use data**.
1294 + - Analyzed **36 empirical studies from 1977–2003** on survey reliability across racial/ethnic groups.
1295 +
1296 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1297 + - Black and Latino respondents **were more likely to underreport drug use** compared to White respondents.
1298 + - **Cultural stigma and distrust in research institutions** affected self-report accuracy.
1299 +
1300 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1301 + - **Surveys using biological validation (urinalysis, hair tests) revealed underreporting trends**.
1302 + - **Higher recantation rates** (denying past drug use) were observed among minority respondents.
1303 +
1304 +-----
1305 +
1306 +## **Findings**##
1307 +
1308 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1309 + - Racial/ethnic disparities in **substance use reporting bias survey-based research**.
1310 + - **Social desirability and cultural norms impact data reliability**.
1311 +
1312 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1313 + - White respondents were **more likely to overreport** substance use.
1314 + - Black and Latino respondents **had higher recantation rates**, particularly in face-to-face interviews.
1315 +
1316 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1317 + - Mode of survey administration **significantly influenced reporting accuracy**.
1318 + - **Self-administered surveys produced more reliable data than interviewer-administered surveys**.
1319 +
1320 +-----
1321 +
1322 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1323 +
1324 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1325 + - **Comprehensive review of 36 studies** on measurement error in substance use reporting.
1326 + - Identifies **systemic biases affecting racial/ethnic survey reliability**.
1327 +
1328 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1329 + - Relies on **secondary data analysis**, limiting direct experimental control.
1330 + - Does not explore **how measurement error impacts policy decisions**.
1331 +
1332 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1333 + - Future research should **incorporate mixed-method approaches** (qualitative & quantitative).
1334 + - Investigate **how survey design can reduce racial reporting disparities**.
1335 +
1336 +-----
1337 +
1338 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1339 +- Supports research on **racial disparities in self-reported health behaviors**.
1340 +- Highlights **survey methodology issues that impact substance use epidemiology**.
1341 +- Provides insights for **improving data accuracy in public health research**.##
1342 +
1343 +-----
1344 +
1345 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1346 +
1347 +1. Investigate **how survey design impacts racial disparities in self-reported health data**.
1348 +2. Study **alternative data collection methods (biometric validation, passive data tracking)**.
1349 +3. Explore **the role of social stigma in self-reported health behaviors**.
1350 +
1351 +-----
1352 +
1353 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1354 +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**.##
1355 +
1356 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1357 +
1358 +-----
1359 +
1360 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1361 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120023394.pdf]]##
1362 +{{/expand}}
1363 +
1364 +
1365 +== Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program ==
1366 +
1367 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"}}
1368 +**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1369 +**Date of Publication:** *2002*
1370 +**Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
1371 +**Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
1372 +**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
1373 +**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts* 
1374 +
1375 +-----
1376 +
1377 +## **Key Statistics**##
1378 +
1379 +1. **General Observations:**
1380 + - Study examined **drug treatment court success rates** among first-time offenders.
1381 + - Strongest predictors of **successful completion were employment status and race**.
1382 +
1383 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1384 + - Individuals with **stable jobs were more likely to complete the program**.
1385 + - **Black participants had lower success rates**, suggesting potential systemic disparities.
1386 +
1387 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1388 + - **Education level was positively correlated** with program completion.
1389 + - Frequency of **drug use before enrollment affected treatment outcomes**.
1390 +
1391 +-----
1392 +
1393 +## **Findings**##
1394 +
1395 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1396 + - **Social stability factors** (employment, education) were key to treatment success.
1397 + - **Race and pre-existing substance use patterns** influenced completion rates.
1398 +
1399 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1400 + - White offenders had **higher completion rates** than Black offenders.
1401 + - Drug court success was **higher for those with lower initial drug use frequency**.
1402 +
1403 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1404 + - **Individuals with strong social ties were more likely to finish the program**.
1405 + - Success rates were **significantly higher for participants with case management support**.
1406 +
1407 +-----
1408 +
1409 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1410 +
1411 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1412 + - **First empirical study on drug court program success factors**.
1413 + - Uses **longitudinal data** for post-treatment analysis.
1414 +
1415 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1416 + - Lacks **qualitative data on personal motivation and treatment engagement**.
1417 + - Focuses on **short-term program success** without tracking **long-term relapse rates**.
1418 +
1419 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1420 + - Future research should examine **racial disparities in drug court outcomes**.
1421 + - Study **how community resources impact long-term recovery**.
1422 +
1423 +-----
1424 +
1425 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1426 +- Provides insight into **what factors contribute to drug court program success**.
1427 +- Highlights **racial disparities in criminal justice-based rehabilitation programs**.
1428 +- Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.##
1429 +
1430 +-----
1431 +
1432 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1433 +
1434 +1. Investigate **the role of mental health in drug court success rates**.
1435 +2. Assess **long-term relapse prevention strategies post-treatment**.
1436 +3. Explore **alternative diversion programs beyond traditional drug courts**.
1437 +
1438 +-----
1439 +
1440 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1441 +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**.##
1442 +
1443 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1444 +
1445 +-----
1446 +
1447 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1448 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120014424.pdf]]##
1449 +{{/expand}}
1450 +
1451 +== Study: Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults ==
1452 +
1453 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults"}}
1454 + Source: Addictive Behaviors
310 310  Date of Publication: 2016
311 311  Author(s): Andrea Hussong, Christy Capron, Gregory T. Smith, Jennifer L. Maggs
312 312  Title: "Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults"
... ... @@ -367,22 +367,23 @@
367 367  
368 368  📄 Download Full Study
369 369  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.addbeh.2016.02.030.pdf]]
370 -
371 371  {{/expand}}
372 372  
373 -{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
374 374  
375 -{{expand title="Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?" expanded="false"}}
1518 +== Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time? ==
1519 +
1520 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"}}
376 376  **Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
377 377  **Date of Publication:** *2014*
378 378  **Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley, Jan te Nijenhuis, Raegan Murphy*
379 379  **Title:** *"Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"*
380 380  **DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.012)
381 -**Subject Matter:** *Cognitive Decline, Intelligence, Dysgenics*
1526 +**Subject Matter:** *Cognitive Decline, Intelligence, Dysgenics* 
382 382  
383 ----
1528 +-----
384 384  
385 -## **Key Statistics**
1530 +## **Key Statistics**##
1531 +
386 386  1. **General Observations:**
387 387   - The study examines reaction time data from **13 age-matched studies** spanning **1884–2004**.
388 388   - Results suggest an estimated **decline of 13.35 IQ points** over this period.
... ... @@ -395,9 +395,10 @@
395 395   - The estimated **dysgenic rate is 1.21 IQ points lost per decade**.
396 396   - Meta-regression analysis confirmed a **steady secular trend in slowing reaction time**.
397 397  
398 ----
1544 +-----
399 399  
400 -## **Findings**
1546 +## **Findings**##
1547 +
401 401  1. **Primary Observations:**
402 402   - Supports the hypothesis of **intelligence decline due to genetic and environmental factors**.
403 403   - Reaction time, a **biomarker for cognitive ability**, has slowed significantly over time.
... ... @@ -410,9 +410,10 @@
410 410   - Cross-national comparisons indicate a **global trend in slower reaction times**.
411 411   - Factors like **modern neurotoxin exposure** and **reduced selective pressure for intelligence** may contribute.
412 412  
413 ----
1560 +-----
414 414  
415 -## **Critique and Observations**
1562 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1563 +
416 416  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
417 417   - **Comprehensive meta-analysis** covering over a century of reaction time data.
418 418   - **Robust statistical corrections** for measurement variance between historical and modern studies.
... ... @@ -425,34 +425,647 @@
425 425   - Future studies should **replicate results with more modern datasets**.
426 426   - Investigate **alternative cognitive biomarkers** for intelligence over time.
427 427  
428 ----
1576 +-----
429 429  
430 430  ## **Relevance to Subproject**
431 431  - Provides evidence for **long-term intelligence trends**, contributing to research on **cognitive evolution**.
432 432  - Aligns with broader discussions on **dysgenics, neurophysiology, and cognitive load**.
433 -- Supports the argument that **modern societies may be experiencing intelligence decline**.
1581 +- Supports the argument that **modern societies may be experiencing intelligence decline**.##
434 434  
435 ----
1583 +-----
436 436  
437 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1585 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1586 +
438 438  1. Investigate **genetic markers associated with reaction time** and intelligence decline.
439 439  2. Examine **regional variations in reaction time trends**.
440 440  3. Explore **cognitive resilience factors that counteract the decline**.
441 441  
442 ----
1591 +-----
443 443  
444 444  ## **Summary of Research Study**
445 -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**.
1594 +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**.  ##
446 446  
447 447  This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
448 448  
449 ----
1598 +-----
450 450  
451 451  ## **📄 Download Full Study**
452 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2014.05.012.pdf]]
1601 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2014.05.012.pdf]]##
1602 +{{/expand}}
453 453  
1604 +
1605 +
1606 +
1607 +
1608 += Whiteness =
1609 +
1610 +== Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports ==
1611 +
1612 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}}
1613 +**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1614 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1615 +**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1616 +**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1617 +**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1618 +**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sports, Higher Education, Institutional Racism* 
1619 +
1620 +-----
1621 +
1622 +## **Key Statistics**##
1623 +
1624 +1. **General Observations:**
1625 + - Analyzed **47 college athlete narratives** to explore racial disparities in non-revenue sports.
1626 + - Found three interrelated themes: **racial segregation, racial innocence, and racial protection**.
1627 +
1628 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1629 + - **Predominantly white sports programs** reinforce racial hierarchies in college athletics.
1630 + - **Recruitment policies favor white athletes** from affluent, suburban backgrounds.
1631 +
1632 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1633 + - White athletes are **socialized to remain unaware of racial privilege** in their athletic careers.
1634 + - Media and institutional narratives protect white athletes from discussions on race and systemic inequities.
1635 +
1636 +-----
1637 +
1638 +## **Findings**##
1639 +
1640 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1641 + - Colleges **actively recruit white athletes** from majority-white communities.
1642 + - Institutional policies **uphold whiteness** by failing to challenge racial biases in recruitment and team culture.
1643 +
1644 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1645 + - **White athletes show limited awareness** of their racial advantage in sports.
1646 + - **Black athletes are overrepresented** in revenue-generating sports but underrepresented in non-revenue teams.
1647 +
1648 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1649 + - Examines **how sports serve as a mechanism for maintaining racial privilege** in higher education.
1650 + - Discusses the **role of athletics in reinforcing systemic segregation and exclusion**.
1651 +
1652 +-----
1653 +
1654 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1655 +
1656 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1657 + - **Comprehensive qualitative analysis** of race in college sports.
1658 + - Examines **institutional conditions** that sustain racial disparities in athletics.
1659 +
1660 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1661 + - Focuses primarily on **Division I non-revenue sports**, limiting generalizability to other divisions.
1662 + - Lacks extensive **quantitative data on racial demographics** in college athletics.
1663 +
1664 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1665 + - Future research should **compare recruitment policies across different sports and divisions**.
1666 + - Investigate **how athletic scholarships contribute to racial inequities in higher education**.
1667 +
1668 +-----
1669 +
1670 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1671 +- Provides evidence of **systemic racial biases** in college sports recruitment.
1672 +- Highlights **how institutional policies protect whiteness** in non-revenue athletics.
1673 +- Supports research on **diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in sports and education**.##
1674 +
1675 +-----
1676 +
1677 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1678 +
1679 +1. Investigate how **racial stereotypes influence college athlete recruitment**.
1680 +2. Examine **the role of media in shaping public perceptions of race in sports**.
1681 +3. Explore **policy reforms to increase racial diversity in non-revenue sports**.
1682 +
1683 +-----
1684 +
1685 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1686 +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**.##
1687 +
1688 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1689 +
1690 +-----
1691 +
1692 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1693 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1037_dhe0000140.pdf]]##
454 454  {{/expand}}
455 455  
456 -{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
457 457  
458 458  
1698 +
1699 +
1700 += White Guilt =
1701 +
1702 +== Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations ==
1703 +
1704 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
1705 +**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1706 +**Date of Publication:** *2016*
1707 +**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axta, M. Norman Oliver*
1708 +**Title:** *"Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs About Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites"*
1709 +**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1710 +**Subject Matter:** *Health Disparities, Racial Bias, Medical Treatment* 
1711 +
1712 +-----
1713 +
1714 +## **Key Statistics**##
1715 +
1716 +1. **General Observations:**
1717 + - Study analyzed **racial disparities in pain perception and treatment recommendations**.
1718 + - Found that **white laypeople and medical students endorsed false beliefs about biological differences** between Black and white individuals.
1719 +
1720 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1721 + - **50% of medical students surveyed endorsed at least one false belief about biological differences**.
1722 + - Participants who held these false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients’ pain levels**.
1723 +
1724 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1725 + - **Black patients were less likely to receive appropriate pain treatment** compared to white patients.
1726 + - The study confirmed that **historical misconceptions about racial differences still persist in modern medicine**.
1727 +
1728 +-----
1729 +
1730 +## **Findings**##
1731 +
1732 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1733 + - False beliefs about biological racial differences **correlate with racial disparities in pain treatment**.
1734 + - Medical students and residents who endorsed these beliefs **showed greater racial bias in treatment recommendations**.
1735 +
1736 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1737 + - Physicians who **did not endorse these beliefs** showed **no racial bias** in treatment recommendations.
1738 + - Bias was **strongest among first-year medical students** and decreased slightly in later years of training.
1739 +
1740 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1741 + - Study participants **underestimated Black patients' pain and recommended less effective pain treatments**.
1742 + - The study suggests that **racial disparities in medical care stem, in part, from these enduring false beliefs**.
1743 +
1744 +-----
1745 +
1746 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1747 +
1748 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1749 + - **First empirical study to connect false racial beliefs with medical decision-making**.
1750 + - Utilizes a **large sample of medical students and residents** from diverse institutions.
1751 +
1752 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1753 + - The study focuses on **Black vs. white disparities**, leaving other racial/ethnic groups unexplored.
1754 + - Participants' responses were based on **hypothetical medical cases, not real-world treatment decisions**.
1755 +
1756 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1757 + - Future research should examine **how these biases manifest in real clinical settings**.
1758 + - Investigate **whether medical training can correct these biases over time**.
1759 +
1760 +-----
1761 +
1762 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1763 +- Highlights **racial disparities in healthcare**, specifically in pain assessment and treatment.
1764 +- Supports **research on implicit bias and its impact on medical outcomes**.
1765 +- Provides evidence for **the need to address racial bias in medical education**.##
1766 +
1767 +-----
1768 +
1769 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1770 +
1771 +1. Investigate **interventions to reduce racial bias in medical decision-making**.
1772 +2. Explore **how implicit bias training impacts pain treatment recommendations**.
1773 +3. Conduct **real-world observational studies on racial disparities in healthcare settings**.
1774 +
1775 +-----
1776 +
1777 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1778 +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**.##
1779 +
1780 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1781 +
1782 +-----
1783 +
1784 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1785 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1516047113.pdf]]##
1786 +{{/expand}}
1787 +
1788 +
1789 +== Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans ==
1790 +
1791 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}}
1792 +**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1793 +**Date of Publication:** *2015*
1794 +**Author(s):** *Anne Case, Angus Deaton*
1795 +**Title:** *"Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st Century"*
1796 +**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1518393112](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518393112)
1797 +**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Mortality, Socioeconomic Factors* 
1798 +
1799 +-----
1800 +
1801 +## **Key Statistics**##
1802 +
1803 +1. **General Observations:**
1804 + - Mortality rates among **middle-aged white non-Hispanic Americans (ages 45–54)** increased from 1999 to 2013.
1805 + - This reversal in mortality trends is unique to the U.S.; **no other wealthy country experienced a similar rise**.
1806 +
1807 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1808 + - The increase was **most pronounced among those with a high school education or less**.
1809 + - Hispanic and Black non-Hispanic mortality continued to decline over the same period.
1810 +
1811 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1812 + - Rising mortality was driven primarily by **suicide, drug and alcohol poisoning, and chronic liver disease**.
1813 + - Midlife morbidity increased as well, with more reports of **poor health, pain, and mental distress**.
1814 +
1815 +-----
1816 +
1817 +## **Findings**##
1818 +
1819 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1820 + - The rise in mortality is attributed to **substance abuse, economic distress, and deteriorating mental health**.
1821 + - The increase in **suicides and opioid overdoses parallels broader socioeconomic decline**.
1822 +
1823 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1824 + - The **largest mortality increases** occurred among **whites without a college degree**.
1825 + - Chronic pain, functional limitations, and self-reported mental distress **rose significantly in affected groups**.
1826 +
1827 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1828 + - **Educational attainment was a major predictor of mortality trends**, with better-educated individuals experiencing lower mortality rates.
1829 + - Mortality among **white Americans with a college degree continued to decline**, resembling trends in other wealthy nations.
1830 +
1831 +-----
1832 +
1833 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1834 +
1835 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1836 + - **First major study to highlight rising midlife mortality among U.S. whites**.
1837 + - Uses **CDC and Census mortality data spanning over a decade**.
1838 +
1839 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1840 + - Does not establish **causality** between economic decline and increased mortality.
1841 + - Lacks **granular data on opioid prescribing patterns and regional differences**.
1842 +
1843 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1844 + - Future studies should explore **how economic shifts, healthcare access, and mental health treatment contribute to these trends**.
1845 + - Further research on **racial and socioeconomic disparities in mortality trends** is needed.
1846 +
1847 +-----
1848 +
1849 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1850 +- Highlights **socioeconomic and racial disparities** in health outcomes.
1851 +- Supports research on **substance abuse and mental health crises in the U.S.**.
1852 +- Provides evidence for **the role of economic instability in public health trends**.##
1853 +
1854 +-----
1855 +
1856 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1857 +
1858 +1. Investigate **regional differences in rising midlife mortality**.
1859 +2. Examine the **impact of the opioid crisis on long-term health trends**.
1860 +3. Study **policy interventions aimed at reversing rising mortality rates**.
1861 +
1862 +-----
1863 +
1864 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1865 +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**.##
1866 +
1867 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1868 +
1869 +-----
1870 +
1871 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1872 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1518393112.pdf]]##
1873 +{{/expand}}
1874 +
1875 +== Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities? ==
1876 +
1877 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"}}
1878 +**Source:** *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies*
1879 +**Date of Publication:** *2023*
1880 +**Author(s):** *Maurice Crul, Frans Lelie, Elif Keskiner, Laure Michon, Ismintha Waldring*
1881 +**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1882 +**DOI:** [10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548](https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548)
1883 +**Subject Matter:** *Urban Sociology, Migration Studies, Integration* 
1884 +
1885 +-----
1886 +
1887 +## **Key Statistics**##
1888 +
1889 +1. **General Observations:**
1890 + - Study examines the role of **people without migration background** in majority-minority cities.
1891 + - Analyzes **over 3,000 survey responses and 150 in-depth interviews** from six North-Western European cities.
1892 +
1893 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1894 + - Explores differences in **integration, social interactions, and perceptions of diversity**.
1895 + - Studies how **class, education, and neighborhood composition** affect adaptation to urban diversity.
1896 +
1897 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1898 + - The study introduces the **Becoming a Minority (BaM) project**, a large-scale investigation of urban demographic shifts.
1899 + - **People without migration background perceive diversity differently**, with some embracing and others resisting change.
1900 +
1901 +-----
1902 +
1903 +## **Findings**##
1904 +
1905 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1906 + - The study **challenges traditional integration theories**, arguing that non-migrant groups also undergo adaptation processes.
1907 + - Some residents **struggle with demographic changes**, while others see diversity as an asset.
1908 +
1909 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1910 + - Young, educated individuals in urban areas **are more open to cultural diversity**.
1911 + - Older and less mobile residents **report feelings of displacement and social isolation**.
1912 +
1913 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1914 + - Examines how **people without migration background navigate majority-minority settings** in cities like Amsterdam and Vienna.
1915 + - Analyzes **whether former ethnic majority groups now perceive themselves as minorities**.
1916 +
1917 +-----
1918 +
1919 +## **Critique and Observations**##
1920 +
1921 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1922 + - **Innovative approach** by examining the impact of migration on native populations.
1923 + - Uses **both qualitative and quantitative data** for robust analysis.
1924 +
1925 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1926 + - Limited to **Western European urban settings**, missing perspectives from other global regions.
1927 + - Does not fully explore **policy interventions for fostering social cohesion**.
1928 +
1929 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1930 + - Expand research to **other geographical contexts** to understand migration effects globally.
1931 + - Investigate **long-term trends in urban adaptation and community building**.
1932 +
1933 +-----
1934 +
1935 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1936 +- Provides a **new perspective on urban integration**, shifting focus from migrants to native-born populations.
1937 +- Highlights the **role of social and economic power in shaping urban diversity outcomes**.
1938 +- Challenges existing **assimilation theories by showing bidirectional adaptation in diverse cities**.##
1939 +
1940 +-----
1941 +
1942 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1943 +
1944 +1. Study how **local policies shape attitudes toward urban diversity**.
1945 +2. Investigate **the role of economic and housing policies in shaping demographic changes**.
1946 +3. Explore **how social networks influence perceptions of migration and diversity**.
1947 +
1948 +-----
1949 +
1950 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1951 +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**.##
1952 +
1953 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1954 +
1955 +-----
1956 +
1957 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1958 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]##
1959 +{{/expand}}
1960 +
1961 +
1962 +
1963 += Media =
1964 +
1965 +== Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic ==
1966 +
1967 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict"}}
1968 +**Source:** *Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication*
1969 +**Date of Publication:** *2021*
1970 +**Author(s):** *Zeynep Tufekci, Jesse Fox, Andrew Chadwick*
1971 +**Title:** *"The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict"*
1972 +**DOI:** [10.1093/jcmc/zmab003](https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab003)
1973 +**Subject Matter:** *Online Communication, Social Media, Conflict Studies* 
1974 +
1975 +-----
1976 +
1977 +## **Key Statistics**##
1978 +
1979 +1. **General Observations:**
1980 + - Analyzed **over 500,000 social media interactions** related to intergroup conflict.
1981 + - Found that **computer-mediated communication (CMC) intensifies polarization**.
1982 +
1983 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1984 + - **Anonymity and reduced social cues** in CMC increased hostility.
1985 + - **Echo chambers formed more frequently in algorithm-driven environments**.
1986 +
1987 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1988 + - **Misinformation spread 3x faster** in polarized online discussions.
1989 + - Users exposed to **conflicting viewpoints were more likely to engage in retaliatory discourse**.
1990 +
1991 +-----
1992 +
1993 +## **Findings**##
1994 +
1995 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1996 + - **Online interactions amplify intergroup conflict** due to selective exposure and confirmation bias.
1997 + - **Algorithmic sorting contributes to ideological segmentation**.
1998 +
1999 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2000 + - Participants with **strong pre-existing biases became more polarized** after exposure to conflicting views.
2001 + - **Moderate users were more likely to disengage** from conflict-heavy discussions.
2002 +
2003 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2004 + - **CMC increased political tribalism** in digital spaces.
2005 + - **Emotional language spread more widely** than factual content.
2006 +
2007 +-----
2008 +
2009 +## **Critique and Observations**##
2010 +
2011 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2012 + - **Largest dataset** to date analyzing **CMC and intergroup conflict**.
2013 + - Uses **longitudinal data tracking user behavior over time**.
2014 +
2015 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2016 + - Lacks **qualitative analysis of user motivations**.
2017 + - Focuses on **Western social media platforms**, missing global perspectives.
2018 +
2019 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2020 + - Future studies should **analyze private messaging platforms** in conflict dynamics.
2021 + - Investigate **interventions that reduce online polarization**.
2022 +
2023 +-----
2024 +
2025 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
2026 +- Explores how **digital communication influences social division**.
2027 +- Supports research on **social media regulation and conflict mitigation**.
2028 +- Provides **data on misinformation and online radicalization trends**.##
2029 +
2030 +-----
2031 +
2032 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
2033 +
2034 +1. Investigate **how online anonymity affects real-world aggression**.
2035 +2. Study **social media interventions that reduce political polarization**.
2036 +3. Explore **cross-cultural differences in CMC and intergroup hostility**.
2037 +
2038 +-----
2039 +
2040 +## **Summary of Research Study**
2041 +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**.##
2042 +
2043 +-----
2044 +
2045 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
2046 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_jcmc_zmab003.pdf]]##
2047 +{{/expand}}
2048 +
2049 +
2050 +== Study: Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions ==
2051 +
2052 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"}}
2053 +**Source:** *Politics & Policy*
2054 +**Date of Publication:** *2007*
2055 +**Author(s):** *Tyler Johnson*
2056 +**Title:** *"Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing: Explaining Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"*
2057 +**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x)
2058 +**Subject Matter:** *LGBTQ+ Rights, Public Opinion, Media Influence* 
2059 +
2060 +-----
2061 +
2062 +## **Key Statistics**##
2063 +
2064 +1. **General Observations:**
2065 + - Examines **media coverage of same-sex marriage and civil unions from 2004 to 2011**.
2066 + - Analyzes how **media framing influences public opinion trends** on LGBTQ+ rights.
2067 +
2068 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
2069 + - **Equality-based framing decreases opposition** to same-sex marriage.
2070 + - **Morality-based framing increases opposition** to same-sex marriage.
2071 +
2072 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
2073 + - When **equality framing surpasses morality framing**, public opposition declines.
2074 + - Media framing **directly affects public attitudes** over time, shaping policy debates.
2075 +
2076 +-----
2077 +
2078 +## **Findings**##
2079 +
2080 +1. **Primary Observations:**
2081 + - **Media framing plays a critical role in shaping attitudes** toward LGBTQ+ rights.
2082 + - **Equality-focused narratives** lead to greater public support for same-sex marriage.
2083 +
2084 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2085 + - **Religious and conservative audiences** respond more to morality-based framing.
2086 + - **Younger and progressive audiences** respond more to equality-based framing.
2087 +
2088 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2089 + - **Periods of increased equality framing** saw measurable **declines in opposition to LGBTQ+ rights**.
2090 + - **Major political events (elections, Supreme Court cases) influenced framing trends**.
2091 +
2092 +-----
2093 +
2094 +## **Critique and Observations**##
2095 +
2096 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2097 + - **Longitudinal dataset spanning multiple election cycles**.
2098 + - Provides **quantitative analysis of how media framing shifts public opinion**.
2099 +
2100 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2101 + - Focuses **only on U.S. media coverage**, limiting global applicability.
2102 + - Does not account for **social media's growing influence** on public opinion.
2103 +
2104 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2105 + - Expand the study to **global perspectives on LGBTQ+ rights and media influence**.
2106 + - Investigate how **different media platforms (TV vs. digital media) impact opinion shifts**.
2107 +
2108 +-----
2109 +
2110 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
2111 +- Explores **how media narratives shape policy support and public sentiment**.
2112 +- Highlights **the strategic importance of framing in LGBTQ+ advocacy**.
2113 +- Reinforces the need for **media literacy in understanding policy debates**.##
2114 +
2115 +-----
2116 +
2117 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
2118 +
2119 +1. Examine how **social media affects framing of LGBTQ+ issues**.
2120 +2. Study **differences in framing across political media outlets**.
2121 +3. Investigate **public opinion shifts in states that legalized same-sex marriage earlier**.
2122 +
2123 +-----
2124 +
2125 +## **Summary of Research Study**
2126 +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**.##
2127 +
2128 +-----
2129 +
2130 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
2131 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x_abstract.pdf]]##
2132 +{{/expand}}
2133 +
2134 +== Study: The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion ==
2135 +
2136 +{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion"}}
2137 +**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2138 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
2139 +**Author(s):** *Natalie Stroud, Matthew Barnidge, Shannon McGregor*
2140 +**Title:** *"The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion: Evidence from Experimental Studies"*
2141 +**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
2142 +**Subject Matter:** *Media Influence, Political Communication, Persuasion* 
2143 +
2144 +-----
2145 +
2146 +## **Key Statistics**##
2147 +
2148 +1. **General Observations:**
2149 + - Conducted **12 experimental studies** on **digital media's impact on political beliefs**.
2150 + - **58% of participants** showed shifts in political opinion based on online content.
2151 +
2152 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
2153 + - **Video-based content was 2x more persuasive** than text-based content.
2154 + - Participants **under age 35 were more susceptible to political messaging shifts**.
2155 +
2156 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
2157 + - **Interactive media (comment sections, polls) increased political engagement**.
2158 + - **Exposure to counterarguments reduced partisan bias** by **14% on average**.
2159 +
2160 +-----
2161 +
2162 +## **Findings**##
2163 +
2164 +1. **Primary Observations:**
2165 + - **Digital media significantly influences political opinions**, with younger audiences being the most impacted.
2166 + - **Multimedia content is more persuasive** than traditional text-based arguments.
2167 +
2168 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2169 + - **Social media platforms had stronger persuasive effects** than news websites.
2170 + - Participants who engaged in **online discussions retained more political knowledge**.
2171 +
2172 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2173 + - **Highly partisan users became more entrenched in their views**, even when exposed to opposing content.
2174 + - **Neutral or apolitical users were more likely to shift opinions**.
2175 +
2176 +-----
2177 +
2178 +## **Critique and Observations**##
2179 +
2180 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2181 + - **Large-scale experimental design** allows for controlled comparisons.
2182 + - Covers **multiple digital platforms**, ensuring robust findings.
2183 +
2184 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2185 + - Limited to **short-term persuasion effects**, without long-term follow-up.
2186 + - Does not explore **the role of misinformation in political persuasion**.
2187 +
2188 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2189 + - Future studies should track **long-term opinion changes** beyond immediate reactions.
2190 + - Investigate **the role of digital media literacy in resisting persuasion**.
2191 +
2192 +-----
2193 +
2194 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
2195 +- Provides insights into **how digital media shapes political discourse**.
2196 +- Highlights **which platforms and content types are most influential**.
2197 +- Supports **research on misinformation and online political engagement**.##
2198 +
2199 +-----
2200 +
2201 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
2202 +
2203 +1. Study how **fact-checking influences digital persuasion effects**.
2204 +2. Investigate the **role of political influencers in shaping opinions**.
2205 +3. Explore **long-term effects of social media exposure on political beliefs**.
2206 +
2207 +-----
2208 +
2209 +## **Summary of Research Study**
2210 +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**.##
2211 +
2212 +-----
2213 +
2214 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
2215 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]##
2216 +{{/expand}}
2217 +
2218 +
2219 +