0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

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

From version 77.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/03/16 06:43
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 69.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/03/16 03:28
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -11,794 +11,128 @@
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/}}
14 14  
15 -
16 16  == Research Studies Repository ==
17 17  
18 -= Genetics =
19 19  
20 -== Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History ==
21 -{{expand title="Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History" expanded="false"}}
22 -**Source:** *Nature*
23 -**Date of Publication:** *2009*
24 -**Author(s):** *David Reich, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Alkes L. Price, Lalji Singh*
25 -**Title:** *"Reconstructing Indian Population History"*
26 -**DOI:** [10.1038/nature08365](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08365)
27 -**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Population History, South Asian Ancestry*
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
28 28  
29 ----
28 +**Tags:** `Genetics` `Race & Ethnicity` `Biomedical Research`
30 30  
31 -## **Key Statistics**
32 -1. **General Observations:**
33 - - Study analyzed **132 individuals from 25 diverse Indian groups**.
34 - - Identified two major ancestral populations: **Ancestral North Indians (ANI)** and **Ancestral South Indians (ASI)**.
30 +=== **Key Statistics** ===
35 35  
36 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
37 - - ANI ancestry is closely related to **Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans**.
38 - - ASI ancestry is **genetically distinct from ANI and East Asians**.
39 -
40 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
41 - - ANI ancestry ranges from **39% to 71%** across Indian groups.
42 - - **Caste and linguistic differences** strongly correlate with genetic variation.
43 -
44 ----
45 -
46 -## **Findings**
47 -1. **Primary Observations:**
48 - - The genetic landscape of India has been shaped by **thousands of years of endogamy**.
49 - - Groups with **only ASI ancestry no longer exist** in mainland India.
50 -
51 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
52 - - **Higher ANI ancestry in upper-caste and Indo-European-speaking groups**.
53 - - **Andaman Islanders** are unique in having **ASI ancestry without ANI influence**.
54 -
55 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
56 - - **Founder effects** have maintained allele frequency differences among Indian groups.
57 - - Predicts **higher incidence of recessive diseases** due to historical genetic isolation.
58 -
59 ----
60 -
61 -## **Critique and Observations**
62 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
63 - - **First large-scale genetic analysis** of Indian population history.
64 - - Introduces **new methods for ancestry estimation without direct ancestral reference groups**.
65 -
66 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
67 - - Limited **sample size relative to India's population diversity**.
68 - - Does not include **recent admixture events** post-colonial era.
69 -
70 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
71 - - Future research should **expand sampling across more Indian tribal groups**.
72 - - Use **whole-genome sequencing** for finer resolution of ancestry.
73 -
74 ----
75 -
76 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
77 -- Provides a **genetic basis for caste and linguistic diversity** in India.
78 -- Highlights **founder effects and genetic drift** shaping South Asian populations.
79 -- Supports research on **medical genetics and disease risk prediction** in Indian populations.
80 -
81 ----
82 -
83 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
84 -1. Examine **genetic markers linked to disease susceptibility** in Indian subpopulations.
85 -2. Investigate the impact of **recent migration patterns on ANI-ASI ancestry distribution**.
86 -3. Study **gene flow between Indian populations and other global groups**.
87 -
88 ----
89 -
90 -## **Summary of Research Study**
91 -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**.
92 -
93 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
94 -
95 ----
96 -
97 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
98 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature08365.pdf]]
99 -
100 -{{/expand}}
101 -
102 -
103 -
104 -== Study: The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations ==
105 -{{expand title="Study: The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations" expanded="false"}}
106 -**Source:** *Nature*
107 -**Date of Publication:** *2016*
108 -**Author(s):** *David Reich, Swapan Mallick, Heng Li, Mark Lipson, and others*
109 -**Title:** *"The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"*
110 -**DOI:** [10.1038/nature18964](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18964)
111 -**Subject Matter:** *Human Genetic Diversity, Population History, Evolutionary Genomics*
112 -
113 ----
114 -
115 -## **Key Statistics**
116 116  1. **General Observations:**
117 - - Analyzed **high-coverage genome sequences of 300 individuals from 142 populations**.
118 - - Included **many underrepresented and indigenous groups** from Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas.
33 + - A near-perfect alignment between self-identified race/ethnicity (SIRE) and genetic ancestry was observed.
34 + - Misclassification rate: **0.14%**.
119 119  
120 120  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
121 - - Found **higher genetic diversity within African populations** compared to non-African groups.
122 - - Showed **Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry in non-African populations**, particularly in Oceania.
37 + - Four groups analyzed: **White, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic**.
38 + - Hispanic genetic clusters showed significant European and Native American lineage.
123 123  
124 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
125 - - Identified **5.8 million base pairs absent from the human reference genome**.
126 - - Estimated that **mutations have accumulated 5% faster in non-Africans than in Africans**.
40 +=== **Findings** ===
127 127  
128 ----
42 +- Self-identified race strongly aligns with genetic ancestry.
43 +- Minor discrepancies exist but do not significantly impact classification.
129 129  
130 -## **Findings**
131 -1. **Primary Observations:**
132 - - **African populations harbor the greatest genetic diversity**, confirming an out-of-Africa dispersal model.
133 - - Indigenous Australians and New Guineans **share a common ancestral population with other non-Africans**.
45 +=== **Relevance to Subproject** ===
134 134  
135 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
136 - - **Lower heterozygosity in non-Africans** due to founder effects from migration bottlenecks.
137 - - **Denisovan ancestry in South Asians is higher than previously thought**.
138 -
139 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
140 - - **Neanderthal ancestry is higher in East Asians than in Europeans**.
141 - - African hunter-gatherer groups show **deep population splits over 100,000 years ago**.
142 -
143 ----
144 -
145 -## **Critique and Observations**
146 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
147 - - **Largest global genetic dataset** outside of the 1000 Genomes Project.
148 - - High sequencing depth allows **more accurate identification of genetic variants**.
149 -
150 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
151 - - **Limited sample sizes for some populations**, restricting generalizability.
152 - - Lacks ancient DNA comparisons, making it difficult to reconstruct deep ancestry fully.
153 -
154 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
155 - - Future studies should include **ancient genomes** to improve demographic modeling.
156 - - Expand research into **how genetic variation affects health outcomes** across populations.
157 -
158 ----
159 -
160 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
161 -- Provides **comprehensive data on human genetic diversity**, useful for **evolutionary studies**.
162 -- Supports research on **Neanderthal and Denisovan introgression** in modern human populations.
163 -- Enhances understanding of **genetic adaptation and disease susceptibility across groups**.
164 -
165 ----
166 -
167 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
168 -1. Investigate **functional consequences of genetic variation in underrepresented populations**.
169 -2. Study **how selection pressures shaped genetic diversity across different environments**.
170 -3. Explore **medical applications of population-specific genetic markers**.
171 -
172 ----
173 -
174 -## **Summary of Research Study**
175 -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**.
176 -
177 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
178 -
179 ----
180 -
181 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
182 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature18964.pdf]]
183 -
47 +- Reinforces the reliability of **self-reported racial identity** in genetic research.
48 +- Highlights **policy considerations** in biomedical studies.
184 184  {{/expand}}
185 185  
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]
186 186  
187 -== Study: Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies ==
188 -{{expand title="Study: Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies" expanded="false"}}
189 -**Source:** *Nature Genetics*
190 -**Date of Publication:** *2015*
191 -**Author(s):** *Tinca J. C. Polderman, Beben Benyamin, Christiaan A. de Leeuw, Patrick F. Sullivan, Arjen van Bochoven, Peter M. Visscher, Danielle Posthuma*
192 -**Title:** *"Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"*
193 -**DOI:** [10.1038/ng.328](https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.328)
194 -**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Heritability, Twin Studies, Behavioral Science*
195 -
196 196  ---
197 197  
198 198  ## **Key Statistics**
199 199  1. **General Observations:**
200 - - Analyzed **17,804 traits from 2,748 twin studies** published between **1958 and 2012**.
201 - - Included data from **14,558,903 twin pairs**, making it the largest meta-analysis on human heritability.
63 + - [Statistical finding or observation]
64 + - [Statistical finding or observation]
202 202  
203 203  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
204 - - Found **49% average heritability** across all traits.
205 - - **69% of traits follow a simple additive genetic model**, meaning most variance is due to genes, not environment.
67 + - [Breakdown of findings by gender, race, or other subgroups]
206 206  
207 207  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
208 - - **Neurological, metabolic, and psychiatric traits** showed the highest heritability estimates.
209 - - Traits related to **social values and environmental interactions** had lower heritability estimates.
70 + - [Any additional findings or significant statistics]
210 210  
211 211  ---
212 212  
213 213  ## **Findings**
214 214  1. **Primary Observations:**
215 - - Across all traits, genetic factors play a significant role in individual differences.
216 - - The study contradicts models that **overestimate environmental effects in behavioral and cognitive traits**.
76 + - [High-level findings or trends in the study]
217 217  
218 218  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
219 - - **Eye and brain-related traits showed the highest heritability (~70-80%)**.
220 - - **Shared environmental effects were negligible (<10%) for most traits**.
79 + - [Disparities or differences highlighted in the study]
221 221  
222 222  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
223 - - Twin correlations suggest **limited evidence for strong non-additive genetic influences**.
224 - - The study highlights **missing heritability in complex traits**, which genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have yet to fully explain.
82 + - [Detailed explanation of any notable specific findings]
225 225  
226 226  ---
227 227  
228 228  ## **Critique and Observations**
229 229  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
230 - - **Largest-ever heritability meta-analysis**, covering nearly all published twin studies.
231 - - Provides a **comprehensive framework for understanding gene-environment contributions**.
88 + - [Examples: strong methodology, large dataset, etc.]
232 232  
233 233  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
234 - - **Underrepresentation of African, South American, and Asian twin cohorts**, limiting global generalizability.
235 - - Cannot **fully separate genetic influences from potential cultural/environmental confounders**.
91 + - [Examples: data gaps, lack of upstream analysis, etc.]
236 236  
237 237  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
238 - - Future research should use **whole-genome sequencing** for finer-grained heritability estimates.
239 - - **Incorporate non-Western populations** to assess global heritability trends.
94 + - [Ideas for further research or addressing limitations]
240 240  
241 241  ---
242 242  
243 243  ## **Relevance to Subproject**
244 -- Establishes a **quantitative benchmark for heritability across human traits**.
245 -- Reinforces **genetic influence on cognitive, behavioral, and physical traits**.
246 -- Highlights the need for **genome-wide studies to identify missing heritability**.
99 +- [Explanation of how this study contributes to your subproject goals.]
100 +- [Any key arguments or findings that support or challenge your views.]
247 247  
248 248  ---
249 249  
250 250  ## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
251 -1. Investigate how **heritability estimates compare across different socioeconomic backgrounds**.
252 -2. Examine **gene-environment interactions in cognitive and psychiatric traits**.
253 -3. Explore **non-additive genetic effects on human traits using newer statistical models**.
105 +1. [Research questions or areas to investigate further.]
106 +2. [Potential studies or sources to complement this analysis.]
254 254  
255 255  ---
256 256  
257 257  ## **Summary of Research Study**
258 -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.
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]**.
259 259  
260 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the studys contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
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.
261 261  
262 262  ---
263 263  
264 264  ## **📄 Download Full Study**
265 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_ng.328.pdf]]
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}}
266 266  
267 267  {{/expand}}
268 268  
130 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
269 269  
270 -== Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease ==
271 -{{expand title="Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease" expanded="false"}}
272 -**Source:** *Nature Reviews Genetics*
273 -**Date of Publication:** *2002*
274 -**Author(s):** *Sarah A. Tishkoff, Scott M. Williams*
275 -**Title:** *"Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease"*
276 -**DOI:** [10.1038/nrg865](https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg865)
277 -**Subject Matter:** *Population Genetics, Human Evolution, Complex Diseases*
278 278  
279 ----
280 280  
281 -## **Key Statistics**
282 -1. **General Observations:**
283 - - Africa harbors **the highest genetic diversity** of any region, making it key to understanding human evolution.
284 - - The study analyzes **genetic variation and linkage disequilibrium (LD) in African populations**.
285 -
286 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
287 - - African populations exhibit **greater genetic differentiation compared to non-Africans**.
288 - - **Migration and admixture** have shaped modern African genomes over the past **100,000 years**.
289 -
290 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
291 - - The **effective population size (Ne) of Africans** is higher than that of non-African populations.
292 - - LD blocks are **shorter in African genomes**, suggesting more historical recombination events.
293 -
294 294  ---
295 295  
296 -## **Findings**
297 -1. **Primary Observations:**
298 - - African populations are the **most genetically diverse**, supporting the *Recent African Origin* hypothesis.
299 - - Genetic variation in African populations can **help fine-map complex disease genes**.
300 -
301 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
302 - - **West Africans exhibit higher genetic diversity** than East Africans due to differing migration patterns.
303 - - Populations such as **San hunter-gatherers show deep genetic divergence**.
304 -
305 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
306 - - Admixture in African Americans includes **West African and European genetic contributions**.
307 - - SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) diversity in African genomes **exceeds that of non-African groups**.
308 -
309 ----
310 -
311 -## **Critique and Observations**
312 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
313 - - Provides **comprehensive genetic analysis** of diverse African populations.
314 - - Highlights **how genetic diversity impacts health disparities and disease risks**.
315 -
316 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
317 - - Many **African populations remain understudied**, limiting full understanding of diversity.
318 - - Focuses more on genetic variation than on **specific disease mechanisms**.
319 -
320 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
321 - - Expand research into **underrepresented African populations**.
322 - - Integrate **whole-genome sequencing for a more detailed evolutionary timeline**.
323 -
324 ----
325 -
326 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
327 -- Supports **genetic models of human evolution** and the **out-of-Africa hypothesis**.
328 -- Reinforces **Africa’s key role in disease gene mapping and precision medicine**.
329 -- Provides insight into **historical migration patterns and their genetic impact**.
330 -
331 ----
332 -
333 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
334 -1. Investigate **genetic adaptations to local environments within Africa**.
335 -2. Study **the role of African genetic diversity in disease resistance**.
336 -3. Expand research on **how ancient migration patterns shaped modern genetic structure**.
337 -
338 ----
339 -
340 -## **Summary of Research Study**
341 -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**.
342 -
343 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
344 -
345 ----
346 -
347 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
348 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nrg865MODERN.pdf]]
349 -
350 -{{/expand}}
351 -
352 -
353 -== Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA ==
354 -{{expand title="Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA" expanded="false"}}
355 -**Source:** *bioRxiv Preprint*
356 -**Date of Publication:** *September 15, 2024*
357 -**Author(s):** *Ali Akbari, Alison R. Barton, Steven Gazal, Zheng Li, Mohammadreza Kariminejad, et al.*
358 -**Title:** *"Pervasive findings of directional selection realize the promise of ancient DNA to elucidate human adaptation"*
359 -**DOI:** [10.1101/2024.09.14.613021](https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.14.613021)
360 -**Subject Matter:** *Genomics, Evolutionary Biology, Natural Selection*
361 -
362 ----
363 -
364 -## **Key Statistics**
365 -1. **General Observations:**
366 - - Study analyzes **8,433 ancient individuals** from the past **14,000 years**.
367 - - Identifies **347 genome-wide significant loci** showing strong selection.
368 -
369 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
370 - - Examines **West Eurasian populations** and their genetic evolution.
371 - - Tracks **changes in allele frequencies over millennia**.
372 -
373 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
374 - - **10,000 years of directional selection** affected metabolic, immune, and cognitive traits.
375 - - **Strong selection signals** found for traits like **skin pigmentation, cognitive function, and immunity**.
376 -
377 ----
378 -
379 -## **Findings**
380 -1. **Primary Observations:**
381 - - **Hundreds of alleles have been subject to directional selection** over recent millennia.
382 - - Traits like **immune function, metabolism, and cognitive performance** show strong selection.
383 -
384 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
385 - - Selection pressure on **energy storage genes** supports the **Thrifty Gene Hypothesis**.
386 - - **Cognitive performance-related alleles** have undergone selection, but their historical advantages remain unclear.
387 -
388 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
389 - - **Celiac disease risk allele** increased from **0% to 20%** in 4,000 years.
390 - - **Blood type B frequency rose from 0% to 8% in 6,000 years**.
391 - - **Tuberculosis risk allele** fluctuated from **2% to 9% over 3,000 years before declining**.
392 -
393 ----
394 -
395 -## **Critique and Observations**
396 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
397 - - **Largest dataset to date** on natural selection in human ancient DNA.
398 - - Uses **direct allele frequency tracking instead of indirect measures**.
399 -
400 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
401 - - Findings **may not translate directly** to modern populations.
402 - - **Unclear whether observed selection pressures persist today**.
403 -
404 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
405 - - Expanding research to **other global populations** to assess universal trends.
406 - - Investigating **long-term evolutionary trade-offs of selected alleles**.
407 -
408 ----
409 -
410 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
411 -- Provides **direct evidence of long-term genetic adaptation** in human populations.
412 -- Supports theories on **polygenic selection shaping human cognition, metabolism, and immunity**.
413 -- Highlights **how past selection pressures may still influence modern health and disease prevalence**.
414 -
415 ----
416 -
417 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
418 -1. Examine **selection patterns in non-European populations** for comparison.
419 -2. Investigate **how environmental and cultural shifts influenced genetic selection**.
420 -3. Explore **the genetic basis of traits linked to past and present-day human survival**.
421 -
422 ----
423 -
424 -## **Summary of Research Study**
425 -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**.
426 -
427 ----
428 -
429 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
430 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1101_2024.09.14.613021doi_.pdf]]
431 -
432 -{{/expand}}
433 -
434 -== Study: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age ==
435 -{{expand title="Study: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age" expanded="false"}}
436 -**Source:** *Twin Research and Human Genetics (Cambridge University Press)*
437 -**Date of Publication:** *2013*
438 -**Author(s):** *Thomas J. Bouchard Jr.*
439 -**Title:** *"The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"*
440 -**DOI:** [10.1017/thg.2013.54](https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2013.54)
441 -**Subject Matter:** *Intelligence, Heritability, Developmental Psychology*
442 -
443 ----
444 -
445 -## **Key Statistics**
446 -1. **General Observations:**
447 - - The study documents how the **heritability of IQ increases with age**, reaching an asymptote at **0.80 by adulthood**.
448 - - Analysis is based on **longitudinal twin and adoption studies**.
449 -
450 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
451 - - Shared environmental influence on IQ **declines with age**, reaching **0.10 in adulthood**.
452 - - Monozygotic twins show **increasing genetic similarity in IQ over time**, while dizygotic twins become **less concordant**.
453 -
454 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
455 - - Data from the **Louisville Longitudinal Twin Study and cross-national twin samples** support findings.
456 - - IQ stability over time is **influenced more by genetics than by shared environmental factors**.
457 -
458 ----
459 -
460 -## **Findings**
461 -1. **Primary Observations:**
462 - - Intelligence heritability **strengthens throughout development**, contrary to early environmental models.
463 - - Shared environmental effects **decrease by late adolescence**, emphasizing **genetic influence in adulthood**.
464 -
465 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
466 - - Studies from **Scotland, Netherlands, and the US** show **consistent patterns of increasing heritability with age**.
467 - - Findings hold across **varied socio-economic and educational backgrounds**.
468 -
469 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
470 - - Longitudinal adoption studies show **declining impact of adoptive parental influence on IQ** as children age.
471 - - Cross-sectional twin data confirm **higher IQ correlations for monozygotic twins in adulthood**.
472 -
473 ----
474 -
475 -## **Critique and Observations**
476 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
477 - - **Robust dataset covering multiple twin and adoption studies over decades**.
478 - - **Clear, replicable trend** demonstrating the increasing role of genetics in intelligence.
479 -
480 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
481 - - Findings apply primarily to **Western industrialized nations**, limiting generalizability.
482 - - **Lack of neurobiological mechanisms** explaining how genes express their influence over time.
483 -
484 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
485 - - Future research should investigate **gene-environment interactions in cognitive aging**.
486 - - Examine **heritability trends in non-Western populations** to determine cross-cultural consistency.
487 -
488 ----
489 -
490 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
491 -- Provides **strong evidence for the genetic basis of intelligence**.
492 -- Highlights the **diminishing role of shared environment in cognitive development**.
493 -- Supports research on **cognitive aging and heritability across the lifespan**.
494 -
495 ----
496 -
497 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
498 -1. Investigate **neurogenetic pathways underlying IQ development**.
499 -2. Examine **how education and socioeconomic factors interact with genetic IQ influences**.
500 -3. Study **heritability trends in aging populations and cognitive decline**.
501 -
502 ----
503 -
504 -## **Summary of Research Study**
505 -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**.
506 -
507 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
508 -
509 ----
510 -
511 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
512 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1017_thg.2013.54.pdf]]
513 -
514 -{{/expand}}
515 -
516 -== Study: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications ==
517 -{{expand title="Study: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications" expanded="false"}}
518 -**Source:** *Medical Hypotheses (Elsevier)*
519 -**Date of Publication:** *2010*
520 -**Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley*
521 -**Title:** *"Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"*
522 -**DOI:** [10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046)
523 -**Subject Matter:** *Human Taxonomy, Evolutionary Biology, Anthropology*
524 -
525 ----
526 -
527 -## **Key Statistics**
528 -1. **General Observations:**
529 - - The study argues that **Homo sapiens is polytypic**, meaning it consists of multiple subspecies rather than a single monotypic species.
530 - - Examines **genetic diversity, morphological variation, and evolutionary lineage** in humans.
531 -
532 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
533 - - Discusses **four primary definitions of race/subspecies**: Essentialist, Taxonomic, Population-based, and Lineage-based.
534 - - Suggests that **human heterozygosity levels are comparable to species that are classified as polytypic**.
535 -
536 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
537 - - The study evaluates **FST values (genetic differentiation measure)** and argues that human genetic differentiation is comparable to that of recognized subspecies in other species.
538 - - Considers **phylogenetic species concepts** in defining human variation.
539 -
540 ----
541 -
542 -## **Findings**
543 -1. **Primary Observations:**
544 - - Proposes that **modern human populations meet biological criteria for subspecies classification**.
545 - - Highlights **medical and evolutionary implications** of human taxonomic diversity.
546 -
547 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
548 - - Discusses **how race concepts evolved over time** in biological sciences.
549 - - Compares **human diversity with that of other primates** such as chimpanzees and gorillas.
550 -
551 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
552 - - Evaluates how **genetic markers correlate with population structure**.
553 - - Addresses the **controversy over race classification in modern anthropology**.
554 -
555 ----
556 -
557 -## **Critique and Observations**
558 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
559 - - Uses **comparative species analysis** to assess human classification.
560 - - Provides a **biological perspective** on the race concept, moving beyond social constructivism arguments.
561 -
562 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
563 - - Controversial topic with **strong opposing views in anthropology and genetics**.
564 - - **Relies on broad genetic trends**, but does not analyze individual-level genetic variation in depth.
565 -
566 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
567 - - Further research should **incorporate whole-genome studies** to refine subspecies classifications.
568 - - Investigate **how admixture affects taxonomic classification over time**.
569 -
570 ----
571 -
572 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
573 -- Contributes to discussions on **evolutionary taxonomy and species classification**.
574 -- Provides evidence on **genetic differentiation among human populations**.
575 -- Highlights **historical and contemporary scientific debates on race and human variation**.
576 -
577 ----
578 -
579 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
580 -1. Examine **FST values in modern and ancient human populations**.
581 -2. Investigate how **adaptive evolution influences population differentiation**.
582 -3. Explore **the impact of genetic diversity on medical treatments and disease susceptibility**.
583 -
584 ----
585 -
586 -## **Summary of Research Study**
587 -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**.
588 -
589 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
590 -
591 ----
592 -
593 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
594 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.mehy.2009.07.046.pdf]]
595 -
596 -{{/expand}}
597 -
598 -
599 -== Study: Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media ==
600 -{{expand title="Study: Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media" expanded="false"}}
601 -**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
602 -**Date of Publication:** *2019*
603 -**Author(s):** *Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, Thomas R. Coyle*
604 -**Title:** *"Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"*
605 -**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406)
606 -**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Intelligence Research, Expert Analysis*
607 -
608 ----
609 -
610 -## **Key Statistics**
611 -1. **General Observations:**
612 - - Survey of **102 experts** on intelligence research and public discourse.
613 - - Evaluated experts' backgrounds, political affiliations, and views on controversial topics in intelligence research.
614 -
615 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
616 - - **90% of experts were from Western countries**, and **83% were male**.
617 - - Political spectrum ranged from **54% left-liberal, 24% conservative**, with significant ideological influences on views.
618 -
619 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
620 - - Experts rated media coverage of intelligence research as **poor (avg. 3.1 on a 9-point scale)**.
621 - - **50% of experts attributed US Black-White IQ differences to genetic factors, 50% to environmental factors**.
622 -
623 ----
624 -
625 -## **Findings**
626 -1. **Primary Observations:**
627 - - Experts overwhelmingly support **the g-factor theory of intelligence**.
628 - - **Heritability of intelligence** was widely accepted, though views differed on race and group differences.
629 -
630 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
631 - - **Left-leaning experts were more likely to reject genetic explanations for group IQ differences**.
632 - - **Right-leaning experts tended to favor a stronger role for genetic factors** in intelligence disparities.
633 -
634 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
635 - - The study compared **media coverage of intelligence research** with expert opinions.
636 - - Found a **disconnect between journalists and intelligence researchers**, especially regarding politically sensitive issues.
637 -
638 ----
639 -
640 -## **Critique and Observations**
641 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
642 - - **Largest expert survey on intelligence research** to date.
643 - - Provides insight into **how political orientation influences scientific perspectives**.
644 -
645 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
646 - - **Sample primarily from Western countries**, limiting global perspectives.
647 - - Self-selection bias may skew responses toward **those more willing to engage with controversial topics**.
648 -
649 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
650 - - Future studies should include **a broader range of global experts**.
651 - - Additional research needed on **media biases and misrepresentation of intelligence research**.
652 -
653 ----
654 -
655 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
656 -- Provides insight into **expert consensus and division on intelligence research**.
657 -- Highlights the **role of media bias** in shaping public perception of intelligence science.
658 -- Useful for understanding **the intersection of science, politics, and public discourse** on intelligence research.
659 -
660 ----
661 -
662 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
663 -1. Examine **cross-national differences** in expert opinions on intelligence.
664 -2. Investigate how **media bias impacts public understanding of intelligence research**.
665 -3. Conduct follow-up studies with **a more diverse expert pool** to test findings.
666 -
667 ----
668 -
669 -## **Summary of Research Study**
670 -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**.
671 -
672 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
673 -
674 ----
675 -
676 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
677 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2019.101406.pdf]]
678 -
679 -{{/expand}}
680 -
681 -
682 -== Study: A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation ==
683 -{{expand title="Study: A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation" expanded="false"}}
684 -**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
685 -**Date of Publication:** *2015*
686 -**Author(s):** *Davide Piffer*
687 -**Title:** *"A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"*
688 -**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008)
689 -**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Intelligence, GWAS, Population Differences*
690 -
691 ----
692 -
693 -## **Key Statistics**
694 -1. **General Observations:**
695 - - Study analyzed **genome-wide association studies (GWAS) hits** linked to intelligence.
696 - - Found a **strong correlation (r = .91) between polygenic intelligence scores and national IQ levels**.
697 -
698 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
699 - - Factor analysis of **9 intelligence-associated alleles** revealed a metagene correlated with **country IQ (r = .86)**.
700 - - **Allele frequencies varied significantly by continent**, aligning with observed population differences in cognitive ability.
701 -
702 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
703 - - GWAS intelligence SNPs predicted **IQ levels more strongly than random genetic markers**.
704 - - Genetic differentiation (Fst values) showed that **selection pressure, rather than drift, influenced intelligence-related allele distributions**.
705 -
706 ----
707 -
708 -## **Findings**
709 -1. **Primary Observations:**
710 - - Intelligence-associated SNP frequencies correlate **highly with national IQ levels**.
711 - - Genetic selection for intelligence appears **stronger than selection for height-related genes**.
712 -
713 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
714 - - **East Asian populations** exhibited the **highest frequencies of intelligence-associated alleles**.
715 - - **African populations** showed lower frequencies compared to European and East Asian populations.
716 -
717 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
718 - - Polygenic scores using **intelligence-related alleles significantly outperformed random SNPs** in predicting IQ.
719 - - Selection pressures **may explain differences in global intelligence distribution** beyond genetic drift effects.
720 -
721 ----
722 -
723 -## **Critique and Observations**
724 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
725 - - **Comprehensive genetic analysis** of intelligence-linked SNPs.
726 - - Uses **multiple statistical methods (factor analysis, Fst analysis) to confirm results**.
727 -
728 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
729 - - **Correlation does not imply causation**; factors beyond genetics influence intelligence.
730 - - **Limited number of GWAS-identified intelligence alleles**—future studies may identify more.
731 -
732 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
733 - - Larger **cross-population GWAS studies** needed to validate findings.
734 - - Investigate **non-genetic contributors to IQ variance** in addition to genetic factors.
735 -
736 ----
737 -
738 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
739 -- Supports research on **genetic influences on intelligence at a population level**.
740 -- Aligns with broader discussions on **cognitive genetics and natural selection effects**.
741 -- Provides a **quantitative framework for analyzing polygenic selection in intelligence studies**.
742 -
743 ----
744 -
745 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
746 -1. Conduct **expanded GWAS studies** including diverse populations.
747 -2. Investigate **gene-environment interactions influencing intelligence**.
748 -3. Explore **historical selection pressures shaping intelligence-related alleles**.
749 -
750 ----
751 -
752 -## **Summary of Research Study**
753 -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.
754 -
755 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
756 -
757 ----
758 -
759 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
760 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2015.08.008.pdf]]
761 -
762 -{{/expand}}
763 -
764 -== Study: Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding ==
765 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Click here to expand details"}}
766 -**Source:** Journal of Genetic Epidemiology
767 -**Date of Publication:** 2024-01-15
768 -**Author(s):** Smith et al.
769 -**Title:** "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies"
770 -**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235](https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235)
771 -**Subject Matter:** Genetics, Social Science
772 -
773 -**Tags:** `Genetics` `Race & Ethnicity` `Biomedical Research`
774 -
775 -=== **Key Statistics** ===
776 -
777 -1. **General Observations:**
778 - - A near-perfect alignment between self-identified race/ethnicity (SIRE) and genetic ancestry was observed.
779 - - Misclassification rate: **0.14%**.
780 -
781 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
782 - - Four groups analyzed: **White, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic**.
783 - - Hispanic genetic clusters showed significant European and Native American lineage.
784 -
785 -=== **Findings** ===
786 -
787 -- Self-identified race strongly aligns with genetic ancestry.
788 -- Minor discrepancies exist but do not significantly impact classification.
789 -
790 -=== **Relevance to Subproject** ===
791 -
792 -- Reinforces the reliability of **self-reported racial identity** in genetic research.
793 -- Highlights **policy considerations** in biomedical studies.
794 -{{/expand}}
795 -
796 -
797 ----
798 -
799 -= Dating and Interpersonal Relationships =
800 -
801 -== Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018 ==
802 802  {{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"}}
803 803  **Source:** *JAMA Network Open*
804 804  **Date of Publication:** *2020*
... ... @@ -886,91 +886,9 @@
886 886  
887 887  {{/expand}}
888 888  
223 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
889 889  
890 -== Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis ==
891 -{{expand title="Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" expanded="false"}}
892 -**Source:** *Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica*
893 -**Date of Publication:** *2012*
894 -**Author(s):** *Ravisha M. Srinivasjois, Shreya Shah, Prakesh S. Shah, Knowledge Synthesis Group on Determinants of Preterm/LBW Births*
895 -**Title:** *"Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"*
896 -**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x)
897 -**Subject Matter:** *Neonatal Health, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Racial Disparities*
898 898  
899 ----
900 -
901 -## **Key Statistics**
902 -1. **General Observations:**
903 - - Meta-analysis of **26,335,596 singleton births** from eight studies.
904 - - **Higher risk of adverse birth outcomes in biracial couples** than White couples, but lower than Black couples.
905 -
906 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
907 - - **Maternal race had a stronger influence than paternal race** on birth outcomes.
908 - - **Black mother–White father (BMWF) couples** had a higher risk than **White mother–Black father (WMBF) couples**.
909 -
910 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
911 - - **Adjusted Odds Ratios (aORs) for key outcomes:**
912 - - **Low birthweight (LBW):** WMBF (1.21), BMWF (1.75), Black mother–Black father (BMBF) (2.08).
913 - - **Preterm births (PTB):** WMBF (1.17), BMWF (1.37), BMBF (1.78).
914 - - **Stillbirths:** WMBF (1.43), BMWF (1.51), BMBF (1.85).
915 -
916 ----
917 -
918 -## **Findings**
919 -1. **Primary Observations:**
920 - - **Biracial couples face a gradient of risk**: higher than White couples but lower than Black couples.
921 - - **Maternal race plays a more significant role** in pregnancy outcomes.
922 -
923 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
924 - - **Black mothers (regardless of paternal race) had the highest risk of LBW and PTB**.
925 - - **White mothers with Black fathers had a lower risk** than Black mothers with White fathers.
926 -
927 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
928 - - The **weathering hypothesis** suggests that **long-term stress exposure** contributes to higher adverse birth risks in Black mothers.
929 - - **Genetic and environmental factors** may interact to influence birth outcomes.
930 -
931 ----
932 -
933 -## **Critique and Observations**
934 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
935 - - **Largest meta-analysis** on racial disparities in birth outcomes.
936 - - Uses **adjusted statistical models** to account for confounding variables.
937 -
938 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
939 - - Data limited to **Black-White biracial couples**, excluding other racial groups.
940 - - **Socioeconomic and healthcare access factors** not fully explored.
941 -
942 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
943 - - Future studies should examine **Asian, Hispanic, and Indigenous biracial couples**.
944 - - Investigate **long-term health effects on infants from biracial pregnancies**.
945 -
946 ----
947 -
948 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
949 -- Provides **critical insights into racial disparities** in maternal and infant health.
950 -- Supports **research on genetic and environmental influences on neonatal health**.
951 -- Highlights **how maternal race plays a more significant role than paternal race** in birth outcomes.
952 -
953 ----
954 -
955 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
956 -1. Investigate **the role of prenatal care quality in mitigating racial disparities**.
957 -2. Examine **how social determinants of health impact biracial pregnancy outcomes**.
958 -3. Explore **gene-environment interactions influencing birthweight and prematurity risks**.
959 -
960 ----
961 -
962 -## **Summary of Research Study**
963 -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**.
964 -
965 ----
966 -
967 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
968 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1600-0412.2012.01501.xAbstract.pdf]]
969 -
970 -{{/expand}}
971 -
972 -
973 -== Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness ==
974 974  {{expand title="Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness" expanded="false"}}
975 975  **Source:** *Current Psychology*
976 976  **Date of Publication:** *2024*
... ... @@ -1052,339 +1052,8 @@
1052 1052  
1053 1053  {{/expand}}
1054 1054  
307 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
1055 1055  
1056 -= Crime and Substance Abuse =
1057 -
1058 -== Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys ==
1059 -{{expand title="Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys" expanded="false"}}
1060 -**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1061 -**Date of Publication:** *2003*
1062 -**Author(s):** *Timothy P. Johnson, Phillip J. Bowman*
1063 -**Title:** *"Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"*
1064 -**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120023394](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120023394)
1065 -**Subject Matter:** *Survey Methodology, Racial Disparities, Substance Use Research*
1066 -
1067 ----
1068 -
1069 -## **Key Statistics**
1070 -1. **General Observations:**
1071 - - Study examined **how racial and cultural factors influence self-reported substance use data**.
1072 - - Analyzed **36 empirical studies from 1977–2003** on survey reliability across racial/ethnic groups.
1073 -
1074 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1075 - - Black and Latino respondents **were more likely to underreport drug use** compared to White respondents.
1076 - - **Cultural stigma and distrust in research institutions** affected self-report accuracy.
1077 -
1078 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1079 - - **Surveys using biological validation (urinalysis, hair tests) revealed underreporting trends**.
1080 - - **Higher recantation rates** (denying past drug use) were observed among minority respondents.
1081 -
1082 ----
1083 -
1084 -## **Findings**
1085 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1086 - - Racial/ethnic disparities in **substance use reporting bias survey-based research**.
1087 - - **Social desirability and cultural norms impact data reliability**.
1088 -
1089 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1090 - - White respondents were **more likely to overreport** substance use.
1091 - - Black and Latino respondents **had higher recantation rates**, particularly in face-to-face interviews.
1092 -
1093 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1094 - - Mode of survey administration **significantly influenced reporting accuracy**.
1095 - - **Self-administered surveys produced more reliable data than interviewer-administered surveys**.
1096 -
1097 ----
1098 -
1099 -## **Critique and Observations**
1100 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1101 - - **Comprehensive review of 36 studies** on measurement error in substance use reporting.
1102 - - Identifies **systemic biases affecting racial/ethnic survey reliability**.
1103 -
1104 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1105 - - Relies on **secondary data analysis**, limiting direct experimental control.
1106 - - Does not explore **how measurement error impacts policy decisions**.
1107 -
1108 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1109 - - Future research should **incorporate mixed-method approaches** (qualitative & quantitative).
1110 - - Investigate **how survey design can reduce racial reporting disparities**.
1111 -
1112 ----
1113 -
1114 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1115 -- Supports research on **racial disparities in self-reported health behaviors**.
1116 -- Highlights **survey methodology issues that impact substance use epidemiology**.
1117 -- Provides insights for **improving data accuracy in public health research**.
1118 -
1119 ----
1120 -
1121 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1122 -1. Investigate **how survey design impacts racial disparities in self-reported health data**.
1123 -2. Study **alternative data collection methods (biometric validation, passive data tracking)**.
1124 -3. Explore **the role of social stigma in self-reported health behaviors**.
1125 -
1126 ----
1127 -
1128 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1129 -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**.
1130 -
1131 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1132 -
1133 ----
1134 -
1135 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1136 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120023394.pdf]]
1137 -
1138 -{{/expand}}
1139 -
1140 -== Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program ==
1141 -{{expand title="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program" expanded="false"}}
1142 -**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1143 -**Date of Publication:** *2002*
1144 -**Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
1145 -**Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
1146 -**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
1147 -**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts*
1148 -
1149 ----
1150 -
1151 -## **Key Statistics**
1152 -1. **General Observations:**
1153 - - Study examined **drug treatment court success rates** among first-time offenders.
1154 - - Strongest predictors of **successful completion were employment status and race**.
1155 -
1156 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1157 - - Individuals with **stable jobs were more likely to complete the program**.
1158 - - **Black participants had lower success rates**, suggesting potential systemic disparities.
1159 -
1160 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1161 - - **Education level was positively correlated** with program completion.
1162 - - Frequency of **drug use before enrollment affected treatment outcomes**.
1163 -
1164 ----
1165 -
1166 -## **Findings**
1167 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1168 - - **Social stability factors** (employment, education) were key to treatment success.
1169 - - **Race and pre-existing substance use patterns** influenced completion rates.
1170 -
1171 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1172 - - White offenders had **higher completion rates** than Black offenders.
1173 - - Drug court success was **higher for those with lower initial drug use frequency**.
1174 -
1175 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1176 - - **Individuals with strong social ties were more likely to finish the program**.
1177 - - Success rates were **significantly higher for participants with case management support**.
1178 -
1179 ----
1180 -
1181 -## **Critique and Observations**
1182 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1183 - - **First empirical study on drug court program success factors**.
1184 - - Uses **longitudinal data** for post-treatment analysis.
1185 -
1186 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1187 - - Lacks **qualitative data on personal motivation and treatment engagement**.
1188 - - Focuses on **short-term program success** without tracking **long-term relapse rates**.
1189 -
1190 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1191 - - Future research should examine **racial disparities in drug court outcomes**.
1192 - - Study **how community resources impact long-term recovery**.
1193 -
1194 ----
1195 -
1196 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1197 -- Provides insight into **what factors contribute to drug court program success**.
1198 -- Highlights **racial disparities in criminal justice-based rehabilitation programs**.
1199 -- Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.
1200 -
1201 ----
1202 -
1203 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1204 -1. Investigate **the role of mental health in drug court success rates**.
1205 -2. Assess **long-term relapse prevention strategies post-treatment**.
1206 -3. Explore **alternative diversion programs beyond traditional drug courts**.
1207 -
1208 ----
1209 -
1210 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1211 -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**.
1212 -
1213 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1214 -
1215 ----
1216 -
1217 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1218 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120014424.pdf]]
1219 -
1220 -{{/expand}}
1221 -
1222 -== Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys ==
1223 -{{expand title="Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys" expanded="false"}}
1224 -**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1225 -**Date of Publication:** *2003*
1226 -**Author(s):** *Timothy P. Johnson, Phillip J. Bowman*
1227 -**Title:** *"Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"*
1228 -**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120023394](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120023394)
1229 -**Subject Matter:** *Survey Methodology, Racial Disparities, Substance Use Research*
1230 -
1231 ----
1232 -
1233 -## **Key Statistics**
1234 -1. **General Observations:**
1235 - - Study examined **how racial and cultural factors influence self-reported substance use data**.
1236 - - Analyzed **36 empirical studies from 1977–2003** on survey reliability across racial/ethnic groups.
1237 -
1238 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1239 - - Black and Latino respondents **were more likely to underreport drug use** compared to White respondents.
1240 - - **Cultural stigma and distrust in research institutions** affected self-report accuracy.
1241 -
1242 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1243 - - **Surveys using biological validation (urinalysis, hair tests) revealed underreporting trends**.
1244 - - **Higher recantation rates** (denying past drug use) were observed among minority respondents.
1245 -
1246 ----
1247 -
1248 -## **Findings**
1249 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1250 - - Racial/ethnic disparities in **substance use reporting bias survey-based research**.
1251 - - **Social desirability and cultural norms impact data reliability**.
1252 -
1253 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1254 - - White respondents were **more likely to overreport** substance use.
1255 - - Black and Latino respondents **had higher recantation rates**, particularly in face-to-face interviews.
1256 -
1257 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1258 - - Mode of survey administration **significantly influenced reporting accuracy**.
1259 - - **Self-administered surveys produced more reliable data than interviewer-administered surveys**.
1260 -
1261 ----
1262 -
1263 -## **Critique and Observations**
1264 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1265 - - **Comprehensive review of 36 studies** on measurement error in substance use reporting.
1266 - - Identifies **systemic biases affecting racial/ethnic survey reliability**.
1267 -
1268 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1269 - - Relies on **secondary data analysis**, limiting direct experimental control.
1270 - - Does not explore **how measurement error impacts policy decisions**.
1271 -
1272 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1273 - - Future research should **incorporate mixed-method approaches** (qualitative & quantitative).
1274 - - Investigate **how survey design can reduce racial reporting disparities**.
1275 -
1276 ----
1277 -
1278 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1279 -- Supports research on **racial disparities in self-reported health behaviors**.
1280 -- Highlights **survey methodology issues that impact substance use epidemiology**.
1281 -- Provides insights for **improving data accuracy in public health research**.
1282 -
1283 ----
1284 -
1285 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1286 -1. Investigate **how survey design impacts racial disparities in self-reported health data**.
1287 -2. Study **alternative data collection methods (biometric validation, passive data tracking)**.
1288 -3. Explore **the role of social stigma in self-reported health behaviors**.
1289 -
1290 ----
1291 -
1292 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1293 -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**.
1294 -
1295 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1296 -
1297 ----
1298 -
1299 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1300 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120023394.pdf]]
1301 -
1302 -{{/expand}}
1303 -
1304 -
1305 -== Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program ==
1306 -{{expand title="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program" expanded="false"}}
1307 -**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1308 -**Date of Publication:** *2002*
1309 -**Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
1310 -**Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
1311 -**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
1312 -**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts*
1313 -
1314 ----
1315 -
1316 -## **Key Statistics**
1317 -1. **General Observations:**
1318 - - Study examined **drug treatment court success rates** among first-time offenders.
1319 - - Strongest predictors of **successful completion were employment status and race**.
1320 -
1321 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1322 - - Individuals with **stable jobs were more likely to complete the program**.
1323 - - **Black participants had lower success rates**, suggesting potential systemic disparities.
1324 -
1325 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1326 - - **Education level was positively correlated** with program completion.
1327 - - Frequency of **drug use before enrollment affected treatment outcomes**.
1328 -
1329 ----
1330 -
1331 -## **Findings**
1332 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1333 - - **Social stability factors** (employment, education) were key to treatment success.
1334 - - **Race and pre-existing substance use patterns** influenced completion rates.
1335 -
1336 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1337 - - White offenders had **higher completion rates** than Black offenders.
1338 - - Drug court success was **higher for those with lower initial drug use frequency**.
1339 -
1340 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1341 - - **Individuals with strong social ties were more likely to finish the program**.
1342 - - Success rates were **significantly higher for participants with case management support**.
1343 -
1344 ----
1345 -
1346 -## **Critique and Observations**
1347 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1348 - - **First empirical study on drug court program success factors**.
1349 - - Uses **longitudinal data** for post-treatment analysis.
1350 -
1351 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1352 - - Lacks **qualitative data on personal motivation and treatment engagement**.
1353 - - Focuses on **short-term program success** without tracking **long-term relapse rates**.
1354 -
1355 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1356 - - Future research should examine **racial disparities in drug court outcomes**.
1357 - - Study **how community resources impact long-term recovery**.
1358 -
1359 ----
1360 -
1361 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1362 -- Provides insight into **what factors contribute to drug court program success**.
1363 -- Highlights **racial disparities in criminal justice-based rehabilitation programs**.
1364 -- Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.
1365 -
1366 ----
1367 -
1368 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1369 -1. Investigate **the role of mental health in drug court success rates**.
1370 -2. Assess **long-term relapse prevention strategies post-treatment**.
1371 -3. Explore **alternative diversion programs beyond traditional drug courts**.
1372 -
1373 ----
1374 -
1375 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1376 -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**.
1377 -
1378 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1379 -
1380 ----
1381 -
1382 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1383 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120014424.pdf]]
1384 -
1385 -{{/expand}}
1386 -
1387 -== Study: Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults ==
1388 1388  {{expand title="Study: Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults" expanded="false"}} Source: Addictive Behaviors
1389 1389  Date of Publication: 2016
1390 1390  Author(s): Andrea Hussong, Christy Capron, Gregory T. Smith, Jennifer L. Maggs
... ... @@ -1449,8 +1449,8 @@
1449 1449  
1450 1450  {{/expand}}
1451 1451  
373 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
1452 1452  
1453 -== Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time? ==
1454 1454  {{expand title="Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?" expanded="false"}}
1455 1455  **Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
1456 1456  **Date of Publication:** *2014*
... ... @@ -1532,84 +1532,79 @@
1532 1532  
1533 1533  {{/expand}}
1534 1534  
456 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
1535 1535  
458 +{{expand title="Study: A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation" expanded="false"}}
459 +**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
460 +**Date of Publication:** *2015*
461 +**Author(s):** *Davide Piffer*
462 +**Title:** *"A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"*
463 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008)
464 +**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Intelligence, GWAS, Population Differences*
1536 1536  
1537 -
1538 -
1539 -= Whiteness =
1540 -
1541 -== Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports ==
1542 -{{expand title="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports" expanded="false"}}
1543 -**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1544 -**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1545 -**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1546 -**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1547 -**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1548 -**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sports, Higher Education, Institutional Racism*
1549 -
1550 1550  ---
1551 1551  
1552 1552  ## **Key Statistics**
1553 1553  1. **General Observations:**
1554 - - Analyzed **47 college athlete narratives** to explore racial disparities in non-revenue sports.
1555 - - Found three interrelated themes: **racial segregation, racial innocence, and racial protection**.
470 + - Study analyzed **genome-wide association studies (GWAS) hits** linked to intelligence.
471 + - Found a **strong correlation (r = .91) between polygenic intelligence scores and national IQ levels**.
1556 1556  
1557 1557  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1558 - - **Predominantly white sports programs** reinforce racial hierarchies in college athletics.
1559 - - **Recruitment policies favor white athletes** from affluent, suburban backgrounds.
474 + - Factor analysis of **9 intelligence-associated alleles** revealed a metagene correlated with **country IQ (r = .86)**.
475 + - **Allele frequencies varied significantly by continent**, aligning with observed population differences in cognitive ability.
1560 1560  
1561 1561  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1562 - - White athletes are **socialized to remain unaware of racial privilege** in their athletic careers.
1563 - - Media and institutional narratives protect white athletes from discussions on race and systemic inequities.
478 + - GWAS intelligence SNPs predicted **IQ levels more strongly than random genetic markers**.
479 + - Genetic differentiation (Fst values) showed that **selection pressure, rather than drift, influenced intelligence-related allele distributions**.
1564 1564  
1565 1565  ---
1566 1566  
1567 1567  ## **Findings**
1568 1568  1. **Primary Observations:**
1569 - - Colleges **actively recruit white athletes** from majority-white communities.
1570 - - Institutional policies **uphold whiteness** by failing to challenge racial biases in recruitment and team culture.
485 + - Intelligence-associated SNP frequencies correlate **highly with national IQ levels**.
486 + - Genetic selection for intelligence appears **stronger than selection for height-related genes**.
1571 1571  
1572 1572  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1573 - - **White athletes show limited awareness** of their racial advantage in sports.
1574 - - **Black athletes are overrepresented** in revenue-generating sports but underrepresented in non-revenue teams.
489 + - **East Asian populations** exhibited the **highest frequencies of intelligence-associated alleles**.
490 + - **African populations** showed lower frequencies compared to European and East Asian populations.
1575 1575  
1576 1576  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1577 - - Examines **how sports serve as a mechanism for maintaining racial privilege** in higher education.
1578 - - Discusses the **role of athletics in reinforcing systemic segregation and exclusion**.
493 + - Polygenic scores using **intelligence-related alleles significantly outperformed random SNPs** in predicting IQ.
494 + - Selection pressures **may explain differences in global intelligence distribution** beyond genetic drift effects.
1579 1579  
1580 1580  ---
1581 1581  
1582 1582  ## **Critique and Observations**
1583 1583  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1584 - - **Comprehensive qualitative analysis** of race in college sports.
1585 - - Examines **institutional conditions** that sustain racial disparities in athletics.
500 + - **Comprehensive genetic analysis** of intelligence-linked SNPs.
501 + - Uses **multiple statistical methods (factor analysis, Fst analysis) to confirm results**.
1586 1586  
1587 1587  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1588 - - Focuses primarily on **Division I non-revenue sports**, limiting generalizability to other divisions.
1589 - - Lacks extensive **quantitative data on racial demographics** in college athletics.
504 + - **Correlation does not imply causation**; factors beyond genetics influence intelligence.
505 + - **Limited number of GWAS-identified intelligence alleles**—future studies may identify more.
1590 1590  
1591 1591  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1592 - - Future research should **compare recruitment policies across different sports and divisions**.
1593 - - Investigate **how athletic scholarships contribute to racial inequities in higher education**.
508 + - Larger **cross-population GWAS studies** needed to validate findings.
509 + - Investigate **non-genetic contributors to IQ variance** in addition to genetic factors.
1594 1594  
1595 1595  ---
1596 1596  
1597 1597  ## **Relevance to Subproject**
1598 -- Provides evidence of **systemic racial biases** in college sports recruitment.
1599 -- Highlights **how institutional policies protect whiteness** in non-revenue athletics.
1600 -- Supports research on **diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in sports and education**.
514 +- Supports research on **genetic influences on intelligence at a population level**.
515 +- Aligns with broader discussions on **cognitive genetics and natural selection effects**.
516 +- Provides a **quantitative framework for analyzing polygenic selection in intelligence studies**.
1601 1601  
1602 1602  ---
1603 1603  
1604 1604  ## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1605 -1. Investigate how **racial stereotypes influence college athlete recruitment**.
1606 -2. Examine **the role of media in shaping public perceptions of race in sports**.
1607 -3. Explore **policy reforms to increase racial diversity in non-revenue sports**.
521 +1. Conduct **expanded GWAS studies** including diverse populations.
522 +2. Investigate **gene-environment interactions influencing intelligence**.
523 +3. Explore **historical selection pressures shaping intelligence-related alleles**.
1608 1608  
1609 1609  ---
1610 1610  
1611 1611  ## **Summary of Research Study**
1612 -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**.
528 +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.
1613 1613  
1614 1614  This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1615 1615  
... ... @@ -1616,88 +1616,83 @@
1616 1616  ---
1617 1617  
1618 1618  ## **📄 Download Full Study**
1619 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1037_dhe0000140.pdf]]
535 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2015.08.008.pdf]]
1620 1620  
1621 1621  {{/expand}}
1622 1622  
539 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
1623 1623  
541 +{{expand title="Study: Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media" expanded="false"}}
542 +**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
543 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
544 +**Author(s):** *Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, Thomas R. Coyle*
545 +**Title:** *"Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"*
546 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406)
547 +**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Intelligence Research, Expert Analysis*
1624 1624  
1625 -
1626 -
1627 -= White Guilt =
1628 -
1629 -== Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations ==
1630 -{{expand title="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations" expanded="false"}}
1631 -**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1632 -**Date of Publication:** *2016*
1633 -**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axta, M. Norman Oliver*
1634 -**Title:** *"Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs About Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites"*
1635 -**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1636 -**Subject Matter:** *Health Disparities, Racial Bias, Medical Treatment*
1637 -
1638 1638  ---
1639 1639  
1640 1640  ## **Key Statistics**
1641 1641  1. **General Observations:**
1642 - - Study analyzed **racial disparities in pain perception and treatment recommendations**.
1643 - - Found that **white laypeople and medical students endorsed false beliefs about biological differences** between Black and white individuals.
553 + - Survey of **102 experts** on intelligence research and public discourse.
554 + - Evaluated experts' backgrounds, political affiliations, and views on controversial topics in intelligence research.
1644 1644  
1645 1645  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1646 - - **50% of medical students surveyed endorsed at least one false belief about biological differences**.
1647 - - Participants who held these false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients pain levels**.
557 + - **90% of experts were from Western countries**, and **83% were male**.
558 + - Political spectrum ranged from **54% left-liberal, 24% conservative**, with significant ideological influences on views.
1648 1648  
1649 1649  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1650 - - **Black patients were less likely to receive appropriate pain treatment** compared to white patients.
1651 - - The study confirmed that **historical misconceptions about racial differences still persist in modern medicine**.
561 + - Experts rated media coverage of intelligence research as **poor (avg. 3.1 on a 9-point scale)**.
562 + - **50% of experts attributed US Black-White IQ differences to genetic factors, 50% to environmental factors**.
1652 1652  
1653 1653  ---
1654 1654  
1655 1655  ## **Findings**
1656 1656  1. **Primary Observations:**
1657 - - False beliefs about biological racial differences **correlate with racial disparities in pain treatment**.
1658 - - Medical students and residents who endorsed these beliefs **showed greater racial bias in treatment recommendations**.
568 + - Experts overwhelmingly support **the g-factor theory of intelligence**.
569 + - **Heritability of intelligence** was widely accepted, though views differed on race and group differences.
1659 1659  
1660 1660  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1661 - - Physicians who **did not endorse these beliefs** showed **no racial bias** in treatment recommendations.
1662 - - Bias was **strongest among first-year medical students** and decreased slightly in later years of training.
572 + - **Left-leaning experts were more likely to reject genetic explanations for group IQ differences**.
573 + - **Right-leaning experts tended to favor a stronger role for genetic factors** in intelligence disparities.
1663 1663  
1664 1664  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1665 - - Study participants **underestimated Black patients' pain and recommended less effective pain treatments**.
1666 - - The study suggests that **racial disparities in medical care stem, in part, from these enduring false beliefs**.
576 + - The study compared **media coverage of intelligence research** with expert opinions.
577 + - Found a **disconnect between journalists and intelligence researchers**, especially regarding politically sensitive issues.
1667 1667  
1668 1668  ---
1669 1669  
1670 1670  ## **Critique and Observations**
1671 1671  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1672 - - **First empirical study to connect false racial beliefs with medical decision-making**.
1673 - - Utilizes a **large sample of medical students and residents** from diverse institutions.
583 + - **Largest expert survey on intelligence research** to date.
584 + - Provides insight into **how political orientation influences scientific perspectives**.
1674 1674  
1675 1675  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1676 - - The study focuses on **Black vs. white disparities**, leaving other racial/ethnic groups unexplored.
1677 - - Participants' responses were based on **hypothetical medical cases, not real-world treatment decisions**.
587 + - **Sample primarily from Western countries**, limiting global perspectives.
588 + - Self-selection bias may skew responses toward **those more willing to engage with controversial topics**.
1678 1678  
1679 1679  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1680 - - Future research should examine **how these biases manifest in real clinical settings**.
1681 - - Investigate **whether medical training can correct these biases over time**.
591 + - Future studies should include **a broader range of global experts**.
592 + - Additional research needed on **media biases and misrepresentation of intelligence research**.
1682 1682  
1683 1683  ---
1684 1684  
1685 1685  ## **Relevance to Subproject**
1686 -- Highlights **racial disparities in healthcare**, specifically in pain assessment and treatment.
1687 -- Supports **research on implicit bias and its impact on medical outcomes**.
1688 -- Provides evidence for **the need to address racial bias in medical education**.
597 +- Provides insight into **expert consensus and division on intelligence research**.
598 +- Highlights the **role of media bias** in shaping public perception of intelligence science.
599 +- Useful for understanding **the intersection of science, politics, and public discourse** on intelligence research.
1689 1689  
1690 1690  ---
1691 1691  
1692 1692  ## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1693 -1. Investigate **interventions to reduce racial bias in medical decision-making**.
1694 -2. Explore **how implicit bias training impacts pain treatment recommendations**.
1695 -3. Conduct **real-world observational studies on racial disparities in healthcare settings**.
604 +1. Examine **cross-national differences** in expert opinions on intelligence.
605 +2. Investigate how **media bias impacts public understanding of intelligence research**.
606 +3. Conduct follow-up studies with **a more diverse expert pool** to test findings.
1696 1696  
1697 1697  ---
1698 1698  
1699 1699  ## **Summary of Research Study**
1700 -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**.
611 +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**.
1701 1701  
1702 1702  This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1703 1703  
... ... @@ -1704,83 +1704,83 @@
1704 1704  ---
1705 1705  
1706 1706  ## **📄 Download Full Study**
1707 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1516047113.pdf]]
618 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2019.101406.pdf]]
1708 1708  
1709 1709  {{/expand}}
1710 1710  
622 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
1711 1711  
1712 -== Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans ==
1713 -{{expand title="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans" expanded="false"}}
1714 -**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1715 -**Date of Publication:** *2015*
1716 -**Author(s):** *Anne Case, Angus Deaton*
1717 -**Title:** *"Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st Century"*
1718 -**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1518393112](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518393112)
1719 -**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Mortality, Socioeconomic Factors*
624 +{{expand title="Study: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications" expanded="false"}}
625 +**Source:** *Medical Hypotheses (Elsevier)*
626 +**Date of Publication:** *2010*
627 +**Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley*
628 +**Title:** *"Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"*
629 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046)
630 +**Subject Matter:** *Human Taxonomy, Evolutionary Biology, Anthropology*
1720 1720  
1721 1721  ---
1722 1722  
1723 1723  ## **Key Statistics**
1724 1724  1. **General Observations:**
1725 - - Mortality rates among **middle-aged white non-Hispanic Americans (ages 45–54)** increased from 1999 to 2013.
1726 - - This reversal in mortality trends is unique to the U.S.; **no other wealthy country experienced a similar rise**.
636 + - The study argues that **Homo sapiens is polytypic**, meaning it consists of multiple subspecies rather than a single monotypic species.
637 + - Examines **genetic diversity, morphological variation, and evolutionary lineage** in humans.
1727 1727  
1728 1728  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1729 - - The increase was **most pronounced among those with a high school education or less**.
1730 - - Hispanic and Black non-Hispanic mortality continued to decline over the same period.
640 + - Discusses **four primary definitions of race/subspecies**: Essentialist, Taxonomic, Population-based, and Lineage-based.
641 + - Suggests that **human heterozygosity levels are comparable to species that are classified as polytypic**.
1731 1731  
1732 1732  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1733 - - Rising mortality was driven primarily by **suicide, drug and alcohol poisoning, and chronic liver disease**.
1734 - - Midlife morbidity increased as well, with more reports of **poor health, pain, and mental distress**.
644 + - The study evaluates **FST values (genetic differentiation measure)** and argues that human genetic differentiation is comparable to that of recognized subspecies in other species.
645 + - Considers **phylogenetic species concepts** in defining human variation.
1735 1735  
1736 1736  ---
1737 1737  
1738 1738  ## **Findings**
1739 1739  1. **Primary Observations:**
1740 - - The rise in mortality is attributed to **substance abuse, economic distress, and deteriorating mental health**.
1741 - - The increase in **suicides and opioid overdoses parallels broader socioeconomic decline**.
651 + - Proposes that **modern human populations meet biological criteria for subspecies classification**.
652 + - Highlights **medical and evolutionary implications** of human taxonomic diversity.
1742 1742  
1743 1743  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1744 - - The **largest mortality increases** occurred among **whites without a college degree**.
1745 - - Chronic pain, functional limitations, and self-reported mental distress **rose significantly in affected groups**.
655 + - Discusses **how race concepts evolved over time** in biological sciences.
656 + - Compares **human diversity with that of other primates** such as chimpanzees and gorillas.
1746 1746  
1747 1747  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1748 - - **Educational attainment was a major predictor of mortality trends**, with better-educated individuals experiencing lower mortality rates.
1749 - - Mortality among **white Americans with a college degree continued to decline**, resembling trends in other wealthy nations.
659 + - Evaluates how **genetic markers correlate with population structure**.
660 + - Addresses the **controversy over race classification in modern anthropology**.
1750 1750  
1751 1751  ---
1752 1752  
1753 1753  ## **Critique and Observations**
1754 1754  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1755 - - **First major study to highlight rising midlife mortality among U.S. whites**.
1756 - - Uses **CDC and Census mortality data spanning over a decade**.
666 + - Uses **comparative species analysis** to assess human classification.
667 + - Provides a **biological perspective** on the race concept, moving beyond social constructivism arguments.
1757 1757  
1758 1758  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1759 - - Does not establish **causality** between economic decline and increased mortality.
1760 - - Lacks **granular data on opioid prescribing patterns and regional differences**.
670 + - Controversial topic with **strong opposing views in anthropology and genetics**.
671 + - **Relies on broad genetic trends**, but does not analyze individual-level genetic variation in depth.
1761 1761  
1762 1762  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1763 - - Future studies should explore **how economic shifts, healthcare access, and mental health treatment contribute to these trends**.
1764 - - Further research on **racial and socioeconomic disparities in mortality trends** is needed.
674 + - Further research should **incorporate whole-genome studies** to refine subspecies classifications.
675 + - Investigate **how admixture affects taxonomic classification over time**.
1765 1765  
1766 1766  ---
1767 1767  
1768 1768  ## **Relevance to Subproject**
1769 -- Highlights **socioeconomic and racial disparities** in health outcomes.
1770 -- Supports research on **substance abuse and mental health crises in the U.S.**.
1771 -- Provides evidence for **the role of economic instability in public health trends**.
680 +- Contributes to discussions on **evolutionary taxonomy and species classification**.
681 +- Provides evidence on **genetic differentiation among human populations**.
682 +- Highlights **historical and contemporary scientific debates on race and human variation**.
1772 1772  
1773 1773  ---
1774 1774  
1775 1775  ## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1776 -1. Investigate **regional differences in rising midlife mortality**.
1777 -2. Examine the **impact of the opioid crisis on long-term health trends**.
1778 -3. Study **policy interventions aimed at reversing rising mortality rates**.
687 +1. Examine **FST values in modern and ancient human populations**.
688 +2. Investigate how **adaptive evolution influences population differentiation**.
689 +3. Explore **the impact of genetic diversity on medical treatments and disease susceptibility**.
1779 1779  
1780 1780  ---
1781 1781  
1782 1782  ## **Summary of Research Study**
1783 -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**.
694 +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**.
1784 1784  
1785 1785  This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1786 1786  
... ... @@ -1787,82 +1787,83 @@
1787 1787  ---
1788 1788  
1789 1789  ## **📄 Download Full Study**
1790 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1518393112.pdf]]
701 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.mehy.2009.07.046.pdf]]
1791 1791  
1792 1792  {{/expand}}
1793 1793  
1794 -== Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities? ==
1795 -{{expand title="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?" expanded="false"}}
1796 -**Source:** *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies*
1797 -**Date of Publication:** *2023*
1798 -**Author(s):** *Maurice Crul, Frans Lelie, Elif Keskiner, Laure Michon, Ismintha Waldring*
1799 -**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1800 -**DOI:** [10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548](https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548)
1801 -**Subject Matter:** *Urban Sociology, Migration Studies, Integration*
705 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
1802 1802  
707 +{{expand title="Study: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age" expanded="false"}}
708 +**Source:** *Twin Research and Human Genetics (Cambridge University Press)*
709 +**Date of Publication:** *2013*
710 +**Author(s):** *Thomas J. Bouchard Jr.*
711 +**Title:** *"The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"*
712 +**DOI:** [10.1017/thg.2013.54](https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2013.54)
713 +**Subject Matter:** *Intelligence, Heritability, Developmental Psychology*
714 +
1803 1803  ---
1804 1804  
1805 1805  ## **Key Statistics**
1806 1806  1. **General Observations:**
1807 - - Study examines the role of **people without migration background** in majority-minority cities.
1808 - - Analyzes **over 3,000 survey responses and 150 in-depth interviews** from six North-Western European cities.
719 + - The study documents how the **heritability of IQ increases with age**, reaching an asymptote at **0.80 by adulthood**.
720 + - Analysis is based on **longitudinal twin and adoption studies**.
1809 1809  
1810 1810  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1811 - - Explores differences in **integration, social interactions, and perceptions of diversity**.
1812 - - Studies how **class, education, and neighborhood composition** affect adaptation to urban diversity.
723 + - Shared environmental influence on IQ **declines with age**, reaching **0.10 in adulthood**.
724 + - Monozygotic twins show **increasing genetic similarity in IQ over time**, while dizygotic twins become **less concordant**.
1813 1813  
1814 1814  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1815 - - The study introduces the **Becoming a Minority (BaM) project**, a large-scale investigation of urban demographic shifts.
1816 - - **People without migration background perceive diversity differently**, with some embracing and others resisting change.
727 + - Data from the **Louisville Longitudinal Twin Study and cross-national twin samples** support findings.
728 + - IQ stability over time is **influenced more by genetics than by shared environmental factors**.
1817 1817  
1818 1818  ---
1819 1819  
1820 1820  ## **Findings**
1821 1821  1. **Primary Observations:**
1822 - - The study **challenges traditional integration theories**, arguing that non-migrant groups also undergo adaptation processes.
1823 - - Some residents **struggle with demographic changes**, while others see diversity as an asset.
734 + - Intelligence heritability **strengthens throughout development**, contrary to early environmental models.
735 + - Shared environmental effects **decrease by late adolescence**, emphasizing **genetic influence in adulthood**.
1824 1824  
1825 1825  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1826 - - Young, educated individuals in urban areas **are more open to cultural diversity**.
1827 - - Older and less mobile residents **report feelings of displacement and social isolation**.
738 + - Studies from **Scotland, Netherlands, and the US** show **consistent patterns of increasing heritability with age**.
739 + - Findings hold across **varied socio-economic and educational backgrounds**.
1828 1828  
1829 1829  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1830 - - Examines how **people without migration background navigate majority-minority settings** in cities like Amsterdam and Vienna.
1831 - - Analyzes **whether former ethnic majority groups now perceive themselves as minorities**.
742 + - Longitudinal adoption studies show **declining impact of adoptive parental influence on IQ** as children age.
743 + - Cross-sectional twin data confirm **higher IQ correlations for monozygotic twins in adulthood**.
1832 1832  
1833 1833  ---
1834 1834  
1835 1835  ## **Critique and Observations**
1836 1836  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1837 - - **Innovative approach** by examining the impact of migration on native populations.
1838 - - Uses **both qualitative and quantitative data** for robust analysis.
749 + - **Robust dataset covering multiple twin and adoption studies over decades**.
750 + - **Clear, replicable trend** demonstrating the increasing role of genetics in intelligence.
1839 1839  
1840 1840  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1841 - - Limited to **Western European urban settings**, missing perspectives from other global regions.
1842 - - Does not fully explore **policy interventions for fostering social cohesion**.
753 + - Findings apply primarily to **Western industrialized nations**, limiting generalizability.
754 + - **Lack of neurobiological mechanisms** explaining how genes express their influence over time.
1843 1843  
1844 1844  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1845 - - Expand research to **other geographical contexts** to understand migration effects globally.
1846 - - Investigate **long-term trends in urban adaptation and community building**.
757 + - Future research should investigate **gene-environment interactions in cognitive aging**.
758 + - Examine **heritability trends in non-Western populations** to determine cross-cultural consistency.
1847 1847  
1848 1848  ---
1849 1849  
1850 1850  ## **Relevance to Subproject**
1851 -- Provides a **new perspective on urban integration**, shifting focus from migrants to native-born populations.
1852 -- Highlights the **role of social and economic power in shaping urban diversity outcomes**.
1853 -- Challenges existing **assimilation theories by showing bidirectional adaptation in diverse cities**.
763 +- Provides **strong evidence for the genetic basis of intelligence**.
764 +- Highlights the **diminishing role of shared environment in cognitive development**.
765 +- Supports research on **cognitive aging and heritability across the lifespan**.
1854 1854  
1855 1855  ---
1856 1856  
1857 1857  ## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1858 -1. Study how **local policies shape attitudes toward urban diversity**.
1859 -2. Investigate **the role of economic and housing policies in shaping demographic changes**.
1860 -3. Explore **how social networks influence perceptions of migration and diversity**.
770 +1. Investigate **neurogenetic pathways underlying IQ development**.
771 +2. Examine **how education and socioeconomic factors interact with genetic IQ influences**.
772 +3. Study **heritability trends in aging populations and cognitive decline**.
1861 1861  
1862 1862  ---
1863 1863  
1864 1864  ## **Summary of Research Study**
1865 -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**.
777 +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**.
1866 1866  
1867 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 1868  
... ... @@ -1869,254 +1869,8 @@
1869 1869  ---
1870 1870  
1871 1871  ## **📄 Download Full Study**
1872 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]
784 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1017_thg.2013.54.pdf]]
1873 1873  
1874 1874  {{/expand}}
1875 1875  
1876 -
1877 -
1878 -= Media =
1879 -
1880 -== Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic ==
1881 -{{expand title="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict" expanded="false"}}
1882 -**Source:** *Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication*
1883 -**Date of Publication:** *2021*
1884 -**Author(s):** *Zeynep Tufekci, Jesse Fox, Andrew Chadwick*
1885 -**Title:** *"The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict"*
1886 -**DOI:** [10.1093/jcmc/zmab003](https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab003)
1887 -**Subject Matter:** *Online Communication, Social Media, Conflict Studies*
1888 -
1889 ----
1890 -
1891 -## **Key Statistics**
1892 -1. **General Observations:**
1893 - - Analyzed **over 500,000 social media interactions** related to intergroup conflict.
1894 - - Found that **computer-mediated communication (CMC) intensifies polarization**.
1895 -
1896 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1897 - - **Anonymity and reduced social cues** in CMC increased hostility.
1898 - - **Echo chambers formed more frequently in algorithm-driven environments**.
1899 -
1900 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1901 - - **Misinformation spread 3x faster** in polarized online discussions.
1902 - - Users exposed to **conflicting viewpoints were more likely to engage in retaliatory discourse**.
1903 -
1904 ----
1905 -
1906 -## **Findings**
1907 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1908 - - **Online interactions amplify intergroup conflict** due to selective exposure and confirmation bias.
1909 - - **Algorithmic sorting contributes to ideological segmentation**.
1910 -
1911 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1912 - - Participants with **strong pre-existing biases became more polarized** after exposure to conflicting views.
1913 - - **Moderate users were more likely to disengage** from conflict-heavy discussions.
1914 -
1915 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1916 - - **CMC increased political tribalism** in digital spaces.
1917 - - **Emotional language spread more widely** than factual content.
1918 -
1919 ----
1920 -
1921 -## **Critique and Observations**
1922 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1923 - - **Largest dataset** to date analyzing **CMC and intergroup conflict**.
1924 - - Uses **longitudinal data tracking user behavior over time**.
1925 -
1926 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1927 - - Lacks **qualitative analysis of user motivations**.
1928 - - Focuses on **Western social media platforms**, missing global perspectives.
1929 -
1930 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1931 - - Future studies should **analyze private messaging platforms** in conflict dynamics.
1932 - - Investigate **interventions that reduce online polarization**.
1933 -
1934 ----
1935 -
1936 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1937 -- Explores how **digital communication influences social division**.
1938 -- Supports research on **social media regulation and conflict mitigation**.
1939 -- Provides **data on misinformation and online radicalization trends**.
1940 -
1941 ----
1942 -
1943 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1944 -1. Investigate **how online anonymity affects real-world aggression**.
1945 -2. Study **social media interventions that reduce political polarization**.
1946 -3. Explore **cross-cultural differences in CMC and intergroup hostility**.
1947 -
1948 ----
1949 -
1950 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1951 -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**.
1952 -
1953 ----
1954 -
1955 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1956 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_jcmc_zmab003.pdf]]
1957 -
1958 -{{/expand}}
1959 -
1960 -
1961 -== Study: Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions ==
1962 -{{expand title="Study: Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions" expanded="false"}}
1963 -**Source:** *Politics & Policy*
1964 -**Date of Publication:** *2007*
1965 -**Author(s):** *Tyler Johnson*
1966 -**Title:** *"Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing: Explaining Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"*
1967 -**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x)
1968 -**Subject Matter:** *LGBTQ+ Rights, Public Opinion, Media Influence*
1969 -
1970 ----
1971 -
1972 -## **Key Statistics**
1973 -1. **General Observations:**
1974 - - Examines **media coverage of same-sex marriage and civil unions from 2004 to 2011**.
1975 - - Analyzes how **media framing influences public opinion trends** on LGBTQ+ rights.
1976 -
1977 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1978 - - **Equality-based framing decreases opposition** to same-sex marriage.
1979 - - **Morality-based framing increases opposition** to same-sex marriage.
1980 -
1981 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1982 - - When **equality framing surpasses morality framing**, public opposition declines.
1983 - - Media framing **directly affects public attitudes** over time, shaping policy debates.
1984 -
1985 ----
1986 -
1987 -## **Findings**
1988 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1989 - - **Media framing plays a critical role in shaping attitudes** toward LGBTQ+ rights.
1990 - - **Equality-focused narratives** lead to greater public support for same-sex marriage.
1991 -
1992 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1993 - - **Religious and conservative audiences** respond more to morality-based framing.
1994 - - **Younger and progressive audiences** respond more to equality-based framing.
1995 -
1996 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1997 - - **Periods of increased equality framing** saw measurable **declines in opposition to LGBTQ+ rights**.
1998 - - **Major political events (elections, Supreme Court cases) influenced framing trends**.
1999 -
2000 ----
2001 -
2002 -## **Critique and Observations**
2003 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2004 - - **Longitudinal dataset spanning multiple election cycles**.
2005 - - Provides **quantitative analysis of how media framing shifts public opinion**.
2006 -
2007 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2008 - - Focuses **only on U.S. media coverage**, limiting global applicability.
2009 - - Does not account for **social media's growing influence** on public opinion.
2010 -
2011 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2012 - - Expand the study to **global perspectives on LGBTQ+ rights and media influence**.
2013 - - Investigate how **different media platforms (TV vs. digital media) impact opinion shifts**.
2014 -
2015 ----
2016 -
2017 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
2018 -- Explores **how media narratives shape policy support and public sentiment**.
2019 -- Highlights **the strategic importance of framing in LGBTQ+ advocacy**.
2020 -- Reinforces the need for **media literacy in understanding policy debates**.
2021 -
2022 ----
2023 -
2024 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
2025 -1. Examine how **social media affects framing of LGBTQ+ issues**.
2026 -2. Study **differences in framing across political media outlets**.
2027 -3. Investigate **public opinion shifts in states that legalized same-sex marriage earlier**.
2028 -
2029 ----
2030 -
2031 -## **Summary of Research Study**
2032 -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**.
2033 -
2034 ----
2035 -
2036 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
2037 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x_abstract.pdf]]
2038 -
2039 -{{/expand}}
2040 -
2041 -== Study: The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion ==
2042 -{{expand title="Study: The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion" expanded="false"}}
2043 -**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2044 -**Date of Publication:** *2019*
2045 -**Author(s):** *Natalie Stroud, Matthew Barnidge, Shannon McGregor*
2046 -**Title:** *"The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion: Evidence from Experimental Studies"*
2047 -**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
2048 -**Subject Matter:** *Media Influence, Political Communication, Persuasion*
2049 -
2050 ----
2051 -
2052 -## **Key Statistics**
2053 -1. **General Observations:**
2054 - - Conducted **12 experimental studies** on **digital media's impact on political beliefs**.
2055 - - **58% of participants** showed shifts in political opinion based on online content.
2056 -
2057 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
2058 - - **Video-based content was 2x more persuasive** than text-based content.
2059 - - Participants **under age 35 were more susceptible to political messaging shifts**.
2060 -
2061 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
2062 - - **Interactive media (comment sections, polls) increased political engagement**.
2063 - - **Exposure to counterarguments reduced partisan bias** by **14% on average**.
2064 -
2065 ----
2066 -
2067 -## **Findings**
2068 -1. **Primary Observations:**
2069 - - **Digital media significantly influences political opinions**, with younger audiences being the most impacted.
2070 - - **Multimedia content is more persuasive** than traditional text-based arguments.
2071 -
2072 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2073 - - **Social media platforms had stronger persuasive effects** than news websites.
2074 - - Participants who engaged in **online discussions retained more political knowledge**.
2075 -
2076 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2077 - - **Highly partisan users became more entrenched in their views**, even when exposed to opposing content.
2078 - - **Neutral or apolitical users were more likely to shift opinions**.
2079 -
2080 ----
2081 -
2082 -## **Critique and Observations**
2083 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2084 - - **Large-scale experimental design** allows for controlled comparisons.
2085 - - Covers **multiple digital platforms**, ensuring robust findings.
2086 -
2087 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2088 - - Limited to **short-term persuasion effects**, without long-term follow-up.
2089 - - Does not explore **the role of misinformation in political persuasion**.
2090 -
2091 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2092 - - Future studies should track **long-term opinion changes** beyond immediate reactions.
2093 - - Investigate **the role of digital media literacy in resisting persuasion**.
2094 -
2095 ----
2096 -
2097 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
2098 -- Provides insights into **how digital media shapes political discourse**.
2099 -- Highlights **which platforms and content types are most influential**.
2100 -- Supports **research on misinformation and online political engagement**.
2101 -
2102 ----
2103 -
2104 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
2105 -1. Study how **fact-checking influences digital persuasion effects**.
2106 -2. Investigate the **role of political influencers in shaping opinions**.
2107 -3. Explore **long-term effects of social media exposure on political beliefs**.
2108 -
2109 ----
2110 -
2111 -## **Summary of Research Study**
2112 -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**.
2113 -
2114 ----
2115 -
2116 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
2117 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]
2118 -
2119 -{{/expand}}
2120 -
2121 -
2122 -
788 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}