Skip to Content

Register
Log-in
Search
- The Free Speech / Pro White Wiki
- Page Index
- User Index
- Global
- What's New
- Wiki Index

0.0
1
2
3
4
5

0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

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

From 71.1 to 72.1 From 76.1 to 77.1

From version

edited by Ryan C
on 2025/03/16 05:13

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

To version

edited by Ryan C
on 2025/03/16 05:33

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Raw
Rendered

Summary

Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

@@ -11,8 +11,8 @@
  - Use the **search function** (Ctrl + F or XWiki's built-in search) to quickly find specific topics or authors.
  - If needed, you can export this page as **PDF or print-friendly format**, and all studies will automatically expand for readability.
--{{toc/}}
++
  == Research Studies Repository ==
@@ -1788,3 +1788,412 @@
  {{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
++{{expand title="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict" expanded="false"}}
++**Source:** *Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication*
++**Date of Publication:** *2021*
++**Author(s):** *Zeynep Tufekci, Jesse Fox, Andrew Chadwick*
++**Title:** *"The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict"*
++**DOI:** [10.1093/jcmc/zmab003](https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab003)
++**Subject Matter:** *Online Communication, Social Media, Conflict Studies*
++
++---
++
++## **Key Statistics**
++1. **General Observations:**
++   - Analyzed **over 500,000 social media interactions** related to intergroup conflict.
++   - Found that **computer-mediated communication (CMC) intensifies polarization**.
++
++2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
++   - **Anonymity and reduced social cues** in CMC increased hostility.
++   - **Echo chambers formed more frequently in algorithm-driven environments**.
++
++3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
++   - **Misinformation spread 3x faster** in polarized online discussions.
++   - Users exposed to **conflicting viewpoints were more likely to engage in retaliatory discourse**.
++
++---
++
++## **Findings**
++1. **Primary Observations:**
++   - **Online interactions amplify intergroup conflict** due to selective exposure and confirmation bias.
++   - **Algorithmic sorting contributes to ideological segmentation**.
++
++2. **Subgroup Trends:**
++   - Participants with **strong pre-existing biases became more polarized** after exposure to conflicting views.
++   - **Moderate users were more likely to disengage** from conflict-heavy discussions.
++
++3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
++   - **CMC increased political tribalism** in digital spaces.
++   - **Emotional language spread more widely** than factual content.
++
++---
++
++## **Critique and Observations**
++1. **Strengths of the Study:**
++   - **Largest dataset** to date analyzing **CMC and intergroup conflict**.
++   - Uses **longitudinal data tracking user behavior over time**.
++
++2. **Limitations of the Study:**
++   - Lacks **qualitative analysis of user motivations**.
++   - Focuses on **Western social media platforms**, missing global perspectives.
++
++3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
++   - Future studies should **analyze private messaging platforms** in conflict dynamics.
++   - Investigate **interventions that reduce online polarization**.
++
++---
++
++## **Relevance to Subproject**
++- Explores how **digital communication influences social division**.
++- Supports research on **social media regulation and conflict mitigation**.
++- Provides **data on misinformation and online radicalization trends**.
++
++---
++
++## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
++1. Investigate **how online anonymity affects real-world aggression**.
++2. Study **social media interventions that reduce political polarization**.
++3. Explore **cross-cultural differences in CMC and intergroup hostility**.
++
++---
++
++## **Summary of Research Study**
++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**.
++
++---
++
++## **📄 Download Full Study**
++[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_jcmc_zmab003.pdf]]
++
++{{/expand}}
++
++{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
++
++
++{{expand title="Study: The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion" expanded="false"}}
++**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
++**Date of Publication:** *2019*
++**Author(s):** *Natalie Stroud, Matthew Barnidge, Shannon McGregor*
++**Title:** *"The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion: Evidence from Experimental Studies"*
++**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
++**Subject Matter:** *Media Influence, Political Communication, Persuasion*
++
++---
++
++## **Key Statistics**
++1. **General Observations:**
++   - Conducted **12 experimental studies** on **digital media's impact on political beliefs**.
++   - **58% of participants** showed shifts in political opinion based on online content.
++
++2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
++   - **Video-based content was 2x more persuasive** than text-based content.
++   - Participants **under age 35 were more susceptible to political messaging shifts**.
++
++3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
++   - **Interactive media (comment sections, polls) increased political engagement**.
++   - **Exposure to counterarguments reduced partisan bias** by **14% on average**.
++
++---
++
++## **Findings**
++1. **Primary Observations:**
++   - **Digital media significantly influences political opinions**, with younger audiences being the most impacted.
++   - **Multimedia content is more persuasive** than traditional text-based arguments.
++
++2. **Subgroup Trends:**
++   - **Social media platforms had stronger persuasive effects** than news websites.
++   - Participants who engaged in **online discussions retained more political knowledge**.
++
++3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
++   - **Highly partisan users became more entrenched in their views**, even when exposed to opposing content.
++   - **Neutral or apolitical users were more likely to shift opinions**.
++
++---
++
++## **Critique and Observations**
++1. **Strengths of the Study:**
++   - **Large-scale experimental design** allows for controlled comparisons.
++   - Covers **multiple digital platforms**, ensuring robust findings.
++
++2. **Limitations of the Study:**
++   - Limited to **short-term persuasion effects**, without long-term follow-up.
++   - Does not explore **the role of misinformation in political persuasion**.
++
++3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
++   - Future studies should track **long-term opinion changes** beyond immediate reactions.
++   - Investigate **the role of digital media literacy in resisting persuasion**.
++
++---
++
++## **Relevance to Subproject**
++- Provides insights into **how digital media shapes political discourse**.
++- Highlights **which platforms and content types are most influential**.
++- Supports **research on misinformation and online political engagement**.
++
++---
++
++## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
++1. Study how **fact-checking influences digital persuasion effects**.
++2. Investigate the **role of political influencers in shaping opinions**.
++3. Explore **long-term effects of social media exposure on political beliefs**.
++
++---
++
++## **Summary of Research Study**
++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**.
++
++---
++
++## **📄 Download Full Study**
++[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]
++
++{{/expand}}
++
++{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
++
++{{expand title="Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA" expanded="false"}}
++**Source:** *bioRxiv Preprint*
++**Date of Publication:** *September 15, 2024*
++**Author(s):** *Ali Akbari, Alison R. Barton, Steven Gazal, Zheng Li, Mohammadreza Kariminejad, et al.*
++**Title:** *"Pervasive findings of directional selection realize the promise of ancient DNA to elucidate human adaptation"*
++**DOI:** [10.1101/2024.09.14.613021](https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.14.613021)
++**Subject Matter:** *Genomics, Evolutionary Biology, Natural Selection*
++
++---
++
++## **Key Statistics**
++1. **General Observations:**
++   - Study analyzes **8,433 ancient individuals** from the past **14,000 years**.
++   - Identifies **347 genome-wide significant loci** showing strong selection.
++
++2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
++   - Examines **West Eurasian populations** and their genetic evolution.
++   - Tracks **changes in allele frequencies over millennia**.
++
++3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
++   - **10,000 years of directional selection** affected metabolic, immune, and cognitive traits.
++   - **Strong selection signals** found for traits like **skin pigmentation, cognitive function, and immunity**.
++
++---
++
++## **Findings**
++1. **Primary Observations:**
++   - **Hundreds of alleles have been subject to directional selection** over recent millennia.
++   - Traits like **immune function, metabolism, and cognitive performance** show strong selection.
++
++2. **Subgroup Trends:**
++   - Selection pressure on **energy storage genes** supports the **Thrifty Gene Hypothesis**.
++   - **Cognitive performance-related alleles** have undergone selection, but their historical advantages remain unclear.
++
++3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
++   - **Celiac disease risk allele** increased from **0% to 20%** in 4,000 years.
++   - **Blood type B frequency rose from 0% to 8% in 6,000 years**.
++   - **Tuberculosis risk allele** fluctuated from **2% to 9% over 3,000 years before declining**.
++
++---
++
++## **Critique and Observations**
++1. **Strengths of the Study:**
++   - **Largest dataset to date** on natural selection in human ancient DNA.
++   - Uses **direct allele frequency tracking instead of indirect measures**.
++
++2. **Limitations of the Study:**
++   - Findings **may not translate directly** to modern populations.
++   - **Unclear whether observed selection pressures persist today**.
++
++3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
++   - Expanding research to **other global populations** to assess universal trends.
++   - Investigating **long-term evolutionary trade-offs of selected alleles**.
++
++---
++
++## **Relevance to Subproject**
++- Provides **direct evidence of long-term genetic adaptation** in human populations.
++- Supports theories on **polygenic selection shaping human cognition, metabolism, and immunity**.
++- Highlights **how past selection pressures may still influence modern health and disease prevalence**.
++
++---
++
++## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
++1. Examine **selection patterns in non-European populations** for comparison.
++2. Investigate **how environmental and cultural shifts influenced genetic selection**.
++3. Explore **the genetic basis of traits linked to past and present-day human survival**.
++
++---
++
++## **Summary of Research Study**
++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**.
++
++---
++
++## **📄 Download Full Study**
++[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1101_2024.09.14.613021doi_.pdf]]
++
++{{/expand}}
++
++{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
++
++{{expand title="Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" expanded="false"}}
++**Source:** *Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica*
++**Date of Publication:** *2012*
++**Author(s):** *Ravisha M. Srinivasjois, Shreya Shah, Prakesh S. Shah, Knowledge Synthesis Group on Determinants of Preterm/LBW Births*
++**Title:** *"Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"*
++**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x)
++**Subject Matter:** *Neonatal Health, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Racial Disparities*
++
++---
++
++## **Key Statistics**
++1. **General Observations:**
++   - Meta-analysis of **26,335,596 singleton births** from eight studies.
++   - **Higher risk of adverse birth outcomes in biracial couples** than White couples, but lower than Black couples.
++
++2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
++   - **Maternal race had a stronger influence than paternal race** on birth outcomes.
++   - **Black mother–White father (BMWF) couples** had a higher risk than **White mother–Black father (WMBF) couples**.
++
++3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
++   - **Adjusted Odds Ratios (aORs) for key outcomes:**
++     - **Low birthweight (LBW):** WMBF (1.21), BMWF (1.75), Black mother–Black father (BMBF) (2.08).
++     - **Preterm births (PTB):** WMBF (1.17), BMWF (1.37), BMBF (1.78).
++     - **Stillbirths:** WMBF (1.43), BMWF (1.51), BMBF (1.85).
++
++---
++
++## **Findings**
++1. **Primary Observations:**
++   - **Biracial couples face a gradient of risk**: higher than White couples but lower than Black couples.
++   - **Maternal race plays a more significant role** in pregnancy outcomes.
++
++2. **Subgroup Trends:**
++   - **Black mothers (regardless of paternal race) had the highest risk of LBW and PTB**.
++   - **White mothers with Black fathers had a lower risk** than Black mothers with White fathers.
++
++3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
++   - The **weathering hypothesis** suggests that **long-term stress exposure** contributes to higher adverse birth risks in Black mothers.
++   - **Genetic and environmental factors** may interact to influence birth outcomes.
++
++---
++
++## **Critique and Observations**
++1. **Strengths of the Study:**
++   - **Largest meta-analysis** on racial disparities in birth outcomes.
++   - Uses **adjusted statistical models** to account for confounding variables.
++
++2. **Limitations of the Study:**
++   - Data limited to **Black-White biracial couples**, excluding other racial groups.
++   - **Socioeconomic and healthcare access factors** not fully explored.
++
++3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
++   - Future studies should examine **Asian, Hispanic, and Indigenous biracial couples**.
++   - Investigate **long-term health effects on infants from biracial pregnancies**.
++
++---
++
++## **Relevance to Subproject**
++- Provides **critical insights into racial disparities** in maternal and infant health.
++- Supports **research on genetic and environmental influences on neonatal health**.
++- Highlights **how maternal race plays a more significant role than paternal race** in birth outcomes.
++
++---
++
++## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
++1. Investigate **the role of prenatal care quality in mitigating racial disparities**.
++2. Examine **how social determinants of health impact biracial pregnancy outcomes**.
++3. Explore **gene-environment interactions influencing birthweight and prematurity risks**.
++
++---
++
++## **Summary of Research Study**
++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**.
++
++---
++
++## **📄 Download Full Study**
++[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1600-0412.2012.01501.xAbstract.pdf]]
++
++{{/expand}}
++
++{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
++
++{{expand title="Study: Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions" expanded="false"}}
++**Source:** *Politics & Policy*
++**Date of Publication:** *2007*
++**Author(s):** *Tyler Johnson*
++**Title:** *"Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing: Explaining Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"*
++**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x)
++**Subject Matter:** *LGBTQ+ Rights, Public Opinion, Media Influence*
++
++---
++
++## **Key Statistics**
++1. **General Observations:**
++   - Examines **media coverage of same-sex marriage and civil unions from 2004 to 2011**.
++   - Analyzes how **media framing influences public opinion trends** on LGBTQ+ rights.
++
++2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
++   - **Equality-based framing decreases opposition** to same-sex marriage.
++   - **Morality-based framing increases opposition** to same-sex marriage.
++
++3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
++   - When **equality framing surpasses morality framing**, public opposition declines.
++   - Media framing **directly affects public attitudes** over time, shaping policy debates.
++
++---
++
++## **Findings**
++1. **Primary Observations:**
++   - **Media framing plays a critical role in shaping attitudes** toward LGBTQ+ rights.
++   - **Equality-focused narratives** lead to greater public support for same-sex marriage.
++
++2. **Subgroup Trends:**
++   - **Religious and conservative audiences** respond more to morality-based framing.
++   - **Younger and progressive audiences** respond more to equality-based framing.
++
++3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
++   - **Periods of increased equality framing** saw measurable **declines in opposition to LGBTQ+ rights**.
++   - **Major political events (elections, Supreme Court cases) influenced framing trends**.
++
++---
++
++## **Critique and Observations**
++1. **Strengths of the Study:**
++   - **Longitudinal dataset spanning multiple election cycles**.
++   - Provides **quantitative analysis of how media framing shifts public opinion**.
++
++2. **Limitations of the Study:**
++   - Focuses **only on U.S. media coverage**, limiting global applicability.
++   - Does not account for **social media's growing influence** on public opinion.
++
++3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
++   - Expand the study to **global perspectives on LGBTQ+ rights and media influence**.
++   - Investigate how **different media platforms (TV vs. digital media) impact opinion shifts**.
++
++---
++
++## **Relevance to Subproject**
++- Explores **how media narratives shape policy support and public sentiment**.
++- Highlights **the strategic importance of framing in LGBTQ+ advocacy**.
++- Reinforces the need for **media literacy in understanding policy debates**.
++
++---
++
++## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
++1. Examine how **social media affects framing of LGBTQ+ issues**.
++2. Study **differences in framing across political media outlets**.
++3. Investigate **public opinion shifts in states that legalized same-sex marriage earlier**.
++
++---
++
++## **Summary of Research Study**
++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**.
++
++---
++
++## **📄 Download Full Study**
++[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x_abstract.pdf]]
++
++{{/expand}}
++
++{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
++