0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

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

From version 81.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/03/16 06:49
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 68.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/03/16 03:10
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -11,851 +11,139 @@
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 -
15 15  {{toc/}}
16 16  
17 -
18 18  == Research Studies Repository ==
19 19  
20 20  
21 -= Genetics =
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
22 22  
28 +**Tags:** `Genetics` `Race & Ethnicity` `Biomedical Research`
23 23  
24 -== Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History ==
30 +=== **Key Statistics** ===
25 25  
26 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History"}}
27 -**Source:** *Nature*
28 -**Date of Publication:** *2009*
29 -**Author(s):** *David Reich, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Alkes L. Price, Lalji Singh*
30 -**Title:** *"Reconstructing Indian Population History"*
31 -**DOI:** [10.1038/nature08365](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08365)
32 -**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Population History, South Asian Ancestry* 
33 -
34 -----
35 -
36 -## **Key Statistics**##
37 -
38 38  1. **General Observations:**
39 - - Study analyzed **132 individuals from 25 diverse Indian groups**.
40 - - Identified two major ancestral populations: **Ancestral North Indians (ANI)** and **Ancestral South Indians (ASI)**.
33 + - A near-perfect alignment between self-identified race/ethnicity (SIRE) and genetic ancestry was observed.
34 + - Misclassification rate: **0.14%**.
41 41  
42 42  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
43 - - ANI ancestry is closely related to **Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans**.
44 - - ASI ancestry is **genetically distinct from ANI and East Asians**.
37 + - Four groups analyzed: **White, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic**.
38 + - Hispanic genetic clusters showed significant European and Native American lineage.
45 45  
46 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
47 - - ANI ancestry ranges from **39% to 71%** across Indian groups.
48 - - **Caste and linguistic differences** strongly correlate with genetic variation.
40 +=== **Findings** ===
49 49  
50 -----
42 +- Self-identified race strongly aligns with genetic ancestry.
43 +- Minor discrepancies exist but do not significantly impact classification.
51 51  
52 -## **Findings**##
45 +=== **Relevance to Subproject** ===
53 53  
54 -1. **Primary Observations:**
55 - - The genetic landscape of India has been shaped by **thousands of years of endogamy**.
56 - - Groups with **only ASI ancestry no longer exist** in mainland India.
57 -
58 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
59 - - **Higher ANI ancestry in upper-caste and Indo-European-speaking groups**.
60 - - **Andaman Islanders** are unique in having **ASI ancestry without ANI influence**.
61 -
62 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
63 - - **Founder effects** have maintained allele frequency differences among Indian groups.
64 - - Predicts **higher incidence of recessive diseases** due to historical genetic isolation.
65 -
66 -----
67 -
68 -## **Critique and Observations**##
69 -
70 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
71 - - **First large-scale genetic analysis** of Indian population history.
72 - - Introduces **new methods for ancestry estimation without direct ancestral reference groups**.
73 -
74 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
75 - - Limited **sample size relative to India's population diversity**.
76 - - Does not include **recent admixture events** post-colonial era.
77 -
78 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
79 - - Future research should **expand sampling across more Indian tribal groups**.
80 - - Use **whole-genome sequencing** for finer resolution of ancestry.
81 -
82 -----
83 -
84 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
85 -- Provides a **genetic basis for caste and linguistic diversity** in India.
86 -- Highlights **founder effects and genetic drift** shaping South Asian populations.
87 -- Supports research on **medical genetics and disease risk prediction** in Indian populations.##
88 -
89 -----
90 -
91 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
92 -
93 -1. Examine **genetic markers linked to disease susceptibility** in Indian subpopulations.
94 -2. Investigate the impact of **recent migration patterns on ANI-ASI ancestry distribution**.
95 -3. Study **gene flow between Indian populations and other global groups**.
96 -
97 -----
98 -
99 -## **Summary of Research Study**
100 -This study reconstructs **the genetic history of India**, revealing two ancestral populations—**ANI (related to West Eurasians) and ASI (distinctly South Asian)**. By analyzing **25 diverse Indian groups**, the researchers demonstrate how **historical endogamy and founder effects** have maintained genetic differentiation. The findings have **implications for medical genetics, population history, and the study of South Asian ancestry**.##
101 -
102 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
103 -
104 -----
105 -
106 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
107 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature08365.pdf]]##
47 +- Reinforces the reliability of **self-reported racial identity** in genetic research.
48 +- Highlights **policy considerations** in biomedical studies.
108 108  {{/expand}}
109 109  
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]
110 110  
111 -== Study: The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations ==
59 +---
112 112  
113 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"}}
114 -**Source:** *Nature*
115 -**Date of Publication:** *2016*
116 -**Author(s):** *David Reich, Swapan Mallick, Heng Li, Mark Lipson, and others*
117 -**Title:** *"The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"*
118 -**DOI:** [10.1038/nature18964](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18964)
119 -**Subject Matter:** *Human Genetic Diversity, Population History, Evolutionary Genomics* 
120 -
121 -----
122 -
123 -## **Key Statistics**##
124 -
61 +## **Key Statistics**
125 125  1. **General Observations:**
126 - - Analyzed **high-coverage genome sequences of 300 individuals from 142 populations**.
127 - - Included **many underrepresented and indigenous groups** from Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas.
63 + - [Statistical finding or observation]
64 + - [Statistical finding or observation]
128 128  
129 129  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
130 - - Found **higher genetic diversity within African populations** compared to non-African groups.
131 - - Showed **Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry in non-African populations**, particularly in Oceania.
67 + - [Breakdown of findings by gender, race, or other subgroups]
132 132  
133 133  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
134 - - Identified **5.8 million base pairs absent from the human reference genome**.
135 - - Estimated that **mutations have accumulated 5% faster in non-Africans than in Africans**.
70 + - [Any additional findings or significant statistics]
136 136  
137 -----
72 +---
138 138  
139 -## **Findings**##
140 -
74 +## **Findings**
141 141  1. **Primary Observations:**
142 - - **African populations harbor the greatest genetic diversity**, confirming an out-of-Africa dispersal model.
143 - - Indigenous Australians and New Guineans **share a common ancestral population with other non-Africans**.
76 + - [High-level findings or trends in the study]
144 144  
145 145  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
146 - - **Lower heterozygosity in non-Africans** due to founder effects from migration bottlenecks.
147 - - **Denisovan ancestry in South Asians is higher than previously thought**.
79 + - [Disparities or differences highlighted in the study]
148 148  
149 149  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
150 - - **Neanderthal ancestry is higher in East Asians than in Europeans**.
151 - - African hunter-gatherer groups show **deep population splits over 100,000 years ago**.
82 + - [Detailed explanation of any notable specific findings]
152 152  
153 -----
84 +---
154 154  
155 -## **Critique and Observations**##
156 -
86 +## **Critique and Observations**
157 157  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
158 - - **Largest global genetic dataset** outside of the 1000 Genomes Project.
159 - - High sequencing depth allows **more accurate identification of genetic variants**.
88 + - [Examples: strong methodology, large dataset, etc.]
160 160  
161 161  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
162 - - **Limited sample sizes for some populations**, restricting generalizability.
163 - - Lacks ancient DNA comparisons, making it difficult to reconstruct deep ancestry fully.
91 + - [Examples: data gaps, lack of upstream analysis, etc.]
164 164  
165 165  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
166 - - Future studies should include **ancient genomes** to improve demographic modeling.
167 - - Expand research into **how genetic variation affects health outcomes** across populations.
94 + - [Ideas for further research or addressing limitations]
168 168  
169 -----
96 +---
170 170  
171 171  ## **Relevance to Subproject**
172 -- Provides **comprehensive data on human genetic diversity**, useful for **evolutionary studies**.
173 -- Supports research on **Neanderthal and Denisovan introgression** in modern human populations.
174 -- Enhances understanding of **genetic adaptation and disease susceptibility across groups**.##
99 +- [Explanation of how this study contributes to your subproject goals.]
100 +- [Any key arguments or findings that support or challenge your views.]
175 175  
176 -----
102 +---
177 177  
178 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
104 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
105 +1. [Research questions or areas to investigate further.]
106 +2. [Potential studies or sources to complement this analysis.]
179 179  
180 -1. Investigate **functional consequences of genetic variation in underrepresented populations**.
181 -2. Study **how selection pressures shaped genetic diversity across different environments**.
182 -3. Explore **medical applications of population-specific genetic markers**.
108 +---
183 183  
184 -----
185 -
186 186  ## **Summary of Research Study**
187 -This study presents **high-coverage genome sequences from 300 individuals across 142 populations**, offering **new insights into global genetic diversity and human evolution**. The findings highlight **deep African population splits, widespread archaic ancestry in non-Africans, and unique variants absent from the human reference genome**. The research enhances our understanding of **migration patterns, adaptation, and evolutionary history**.##
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]**.
188 188  
189 -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.
190 190  
191 -----
115 +---
192 192  
193 193  ## **📄 Download Full Study**
194 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature18964.pdf]]##
195 -{{/expand}}
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}}
196 196  
197 -
198 -== Study: Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies ==
199 -
200 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"}}
201 -**Source:** *Nature Genetics*
202 -**Date of Publication:** *2015*
203 -**Author(s):** *Tinca J. C. Polderman, Beben Benyamin, Christiaan A. de Leeuw, Patrick F. Sullivan, Arjen van Bochoven, Peter M. Visscher, Danielle Posthuma*
204 -**Title:** *"Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"*
205 -**DOI:** [10.1038/ng.328](https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.328)
206 -**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Heritability, Twin Studies, Behavioral Science* 
207 -
208 -----
209 -
210 -## **Key Statistics**##
211 -
212 -1. **General Observations:**
213 - - Analyzed **17,804 traits from 2,748 twin studies** published between **1958 and 2012**.
214 - - Included data from **14,558,903 twin pairs**, making it the largest meta-analysis on human heritability.
215 -
216 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
217 - - Found **49% average heritability** across all traits.
218 - - **69% of traits follow a simple additive genetic model**, meaning most variance is due to genes, not environment.
219 -
220 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
221 - - **Neurological, metabolic, and psychiatric traits** showed the highest heritability estimates.
222 - - Traits related to **social values and environmental interactions** had lower heritability estimates.
223 -
224 -----
225 -
226 -## **Findings**##
227 -
228 -1. **Primary Observations:**
229 - - Across all traits, genetic factors play a significant role in individual differences.
230 - - The study contradicts models that **overestimate environmental effects in behavioral and cognitive traits**.
231 -
232 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
233 - - **Eye and brain-related traits showed the highest heritability (70-80%)**.
234 - - **Shared environmental effects were negligible (<10%) for most traits**.
235 -
236 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
237 - - Twin correlations suggest **limited evidence for strong non-additive genetic influences**.
238 - - The study highlights **missing heritability in complex traits**, which genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have yet to fully explain.
239 -
240 -----
241 -
242 -## **Critique and Observations**##
243 -
244 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
245 - - **Largest-ever heritability meta-analysis**, covering nearly all published twin studies.
246 - - Provides a **comprehensive framework for understanding gene-environment contributions**.
247 -
248 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
249 - - **Underrepresentation of African, South American, and Asian twin cohorts**, limiting global generalizability.
250 - - Cannot **fully separate genetic influences from potential cultural/environmental confounders**.
251 -
252 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
253 - - Future research should use **whole-genome sequencing** for finer-grained heritability estimates.
254 - - **Incorporate non-Western populations** to assess global heritability trends.
255 -
256 -----
257 -
258 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
259 -- Establishes a **quantitative benchmark for heritability across human traits**.
260 -- Reinforces **genetic influence on cognitive, behavioral, and physical traits**.
261 -- Highlights the need for **genome-wide studies to identify missing heritability**.##
262 -
263 -----
264 -
265 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
266 -
267 -1. Investigate how **heritability estimates compare across different socioeconomic backgrounds**.
268 -2. Examine **gene-environment interactions in cognitive and psychiatric traits**.
269 -3. Explore **non-additive genetic effects on human traits using newer statistical models**.
270 -
271 -----
272 -
273 -## **Summary of Research Study**
274 -This study presents a **comprehensive meta-analysis of human trait heritability**, covering **over 50 years of twin research**. The findings confirm **genes play a predominant role in shaping human traits**, with an **average heritability of 49%** across all measured characteristics. The research offers **valuable insights into genetic and environmental influences**, guiding future gene-mapping efforts and behavioral genetics studies.##
275 -
276 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
277 -
278 -----
279 -
280 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
281 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_ng.328.pdf]]##
282 282  {{/expand}}
283 283  
130 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
284 284  
285 -== Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease ==
286 286  
287 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease"}}
288 -**Source:** *Nature Reviews Genetics*
289 -**Date of Publication:** *2002*
290 -**Author(s):** *Sarah A. Tishkoff, Scott M. Williams*
291 -**Title:** *"Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease"*
292 -**DOI:** [10.1038/nrg865](https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg865)
293 -**Subject Matter:** *Population Genetics, Human Evolution, Complex Diseases* 
294 294  
295 -----
134 +---
296 296  
297 -## **Key Statistics**##
298 -
299 -1. **General Observations:**
300 - - Africa harbors **the highest genetic diversity** of any region, making it key to understanding human evolution.
301 - - The study analyzes **genetic variation and linkage disequilibrium (LD) in African populations**.
302 -
303 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
304 - - African populations exhibit **greater genetic differentiation compared to non-Africans**.
305 - - **Migration and admixture** have shaped modern African genomes over the past **100,000 years**.
306 -
307 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
308 - - The **effective population size (Ne) of Africans** is higher than that of non-African populations.
309 - - LD blocks are **shorter in African genomes**, suggesting more historical recombination events.
310 -
311 -----
312 -
313 -## **Findings**##
314 -
315 -1. **Primary Observations:**
316 - - African populations are the **most genetically diverse**, supporting the *Recent African Origin* hypothesis.
317 - - Genetic variation in African populations can **help fine-map complex disease genes**.
318 -
319 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
320 - - **West Africans exhibit higher genetic diversity** than East Africans due to differing migration patterns.
321 - - Populations such as **San hunter-gatherers show deep genetic divergence**.
322 -
323 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
324 - - Admixture in African Americans includes **West African and European genetic contributions**.
325 - - SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) diversity in African genomes **exceeds that of non-African groups**.
326 -
327 -----
328 -
329 -## **Critique and Observations**##
330 -
331 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
332 - - Provides **comprehensive genetic analysis** of diverse African populations.
333 - - Highlights **how genetic diversity impacts health disparities and disease risks**.
334 -
335 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
336 - - Many **African populations remain understudied**, limiting full understanding of diversity.
337 - - Focuses more on genetic variation than on **specific disease mechanisms**.
338 -
339 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
340 - - Expand research into **underrepresented African populations**.
341 - - Integrate **whole-genome sequencing for a more detailed evolutionary timeline**.
342 -
343 -----
344 -
345 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
346 -- Supports **genetic models of human evolution** and the **out-of-Africa hypothesis**.
347 -- Reinforces **Africa’s key role in disease gene mapping and precision medicine**.
348 -- Provides insight into **historical migration patterns and their genetic impact**.##
349 -
350 -----
351 -
352 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
353 -
354 -1. Investigate **genetic adaptations to local environments within Africa**.
355 -2. Study **the role of African genetic diversity in disease resistance**.
356 -3. Expand research on **how ancient migration patterns shaped modern genetic structure**.
357 -
358 -----
359 -
360 -## **Summary of Research Study**
361 -This study explores the **genetic diversity of African populations**, analyzing their role in **human evolution and complex disease research**. The findings highlight **Africa’s unique genetic landscape**, confirming it as the most genetically diverse continent. The research provides valuable insights into **how genetic variation influences disease susceptibility, evolution, and population structure**.##
362 -
363 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
364 -
365 -----
366 -
367 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
368 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nrg865MODERN.pdf]]##
369 -{{/expand}}
370 -
371 -
372 -== Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA ==
373 -
374 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA"}}
375 -**Source:** *bioRxiv Preprint*
376 -**Date of Publication:** *September 15, 2024*
377 -**Author(s):** *Ali Akbari, Alison R. Barton, Steven Gazal, Zheng Li, Mohammadreza Kariminejad, et al.*
378 -**Title:** *"Pervasive findings of directional selection realize the promise of ancient DNA to elucidate human adaptation"*
379 -**DOI:** [10.1101/2024.09.14.613021](https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.14.613021)
380 -**Subject Matter:** *Genomics, Evolutionary Biology, Natural Selection* 
381 -
382 -----
383 -
384 -## **Key Statistics**##
385 -
386 -1. **General Observations:**
387 - - Study analyzes **8,433 ancient individuals** from the past **14,000 years**.
388 - - Identifies **347 genome-wide significant loci** showing strong selection.
389 -
390 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
391 - - Examines **West Eurasian populations** and their genetic evolution.
392 - - Tracks **changes in allele frequencies over millennia**.
393 -
394 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
395 - - **10,000 years of directional selection** affected metabolic, immune, and cognitive traits.
396 - - **Strong selection signals** found for traits like **skin pigmentation, cognitive function, and immunity**.
397 -
398 -----
399 -
400 -## **Findings**##
401 -
402 -1. **Primary Observations:**
403 - - **Hundreds of alleles have been subject to directional selection** over recent millennia.
404 - - Traits like **immune function, metabolism, and cognitive performance** show strong selection.
405 -
406 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
407 - - Selection pressure on **energy storage genes** supports the **Thrifty Gene Hypothesis**.
408 - - **Cognitive performance-related alleles** have undergone selection, but their historical advantages remain unclear.
409 -
410 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
411 - - **Celiac disease risk allele** increased from **0% to 20%** in 4,000 years.
412 - - **Blood type B frequency rose from 0% to 8% in 6,000 years**.
413 - - **Tuberculosis risk allele** fluctuated from **2% to 9% over 3,000 years before declining**.
414 -
415 -----
416 -
417 -## **Critique and Observations**##
418 -
419 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
420 - - **Largest dataset to date** on natural selection in human ancient DNA.
421 - - Uses **direct allele frequency tracking instead of indirect measures**.
422 -
423 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
424 - - Findings **may not translate directly** to modern populations.
425 - - **Unclear whether observed selection pressures persist today**.
426 -
427 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
428 - - Expanding research to **other global populations** to assess universal trends.
429 - - Investigating **long-term evolutionary trade-offs of selected alleles**.
430 -
431 -----
432 -
433 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
434 -- Provides **direct evidence of long-term genetic adaptation** in human populations.
435 -- Supports theories on **polygenic selection shaping human cognition, metabolism, and immunity**.
436 -- Highlights **how past selection pressures may still influence modern health and disease prevalence**.##
437 -
438 -----
439 -
440 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
441 -
442 -1. Examine **selection patterns in non-European populations** for comparison.
443 -2. Investigate **how environmental and cultural shifts influenced genetic selection**.
444 -3. Explore **the genetic basis of traits linked to past and present-day human survival**.
445 -
446 -----
447 -
448 -## **Summary of Research Study**
449 -This study examines **how human genetic adaptation has unfolded over 14,000 years**, using a **large dataset of ancient DNA**. It highlights **strong selection on immune function, metabolism, and cognitive traits**, revealing **hundreds of loci affected by directional selection**. The findings emphasize **the power of ancient DNA in tracking human evolution and adaptation**.##
450 -
451 -----
452 -
453 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
454 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1101_2024.09.14.613021doi_.pdf]]##
455 -{{/expand}}
456 -
457 -
458 -== Study: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age ==
459 -
460 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"}}
461 -**Source:** *Twin Research and Human Genetics (Cambridge University Press)*
462 -**Date of Publication:** *2013*
463 -**Author(s):** *Thomas J. Bouchard Jr.*
464 -**Title:** *"The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"*
465 -**DOI:** [10.1017/thg.2013.54](https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2013.54)
466 -**Subject Matter:** *Intelligence, Heritability, Developmental Psychology* 
467 -
468 -----
469 -
470 -## **Key Statistics**##
471 -
472 -1. **General Observations:**
473 - - The study documents how the **heritability of IQ increases with age**, reaching an asymptote at **0.80 by adulthood**.
474 - - Analysis is based on **longitudinal twin and adoption studies**.
475 -
476 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
477 - - Shared environmental influence on IQ **declines with age**, reaching **0.10 in adulthood**.
478 - - Monozygotic twins show **increasing genetic similarity in IQ over time**, while dizygotic twins become **less concordant**.
479 -
480 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
481 - - Data from the **Louisville Longitudinal Twin Study and cross-national twin samples** support findings.
482 - - IQ stability over time is **influenced more by genetics than by shared environmental factors**.
483 -
484 -----
485 -
486 -## **Findings**##
487 -
488 -1. **Primary Observations:**
489 - - Intelligence heritability **strengthens throughout development**, contrary to early environmental models.
490 - - Shared environmental effects **decrease by late adolescence**, emphasizing **genetic influence in adulthood**.
491 -
492 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
493 - - Studies from **Scotland, Netherlands, and the US** show **consistent patterns of increasing heritability with age**.
494 - - Findings hold across **varied socio-economic and educational backgrounds**.
495 -
496 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
497 - - Longitudinal adoption studies show **declining impact of adoptive parental influence on IQ** as children age.
498 - - Cross-sectional twin data confirm **higher IQ correlations for monozygotic twins in adulthood**.
499 -
500 -----
501 -
502 -## **Critique and Observations**##
503 -
504 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
505 - - **Robust dataset covering multiple twin and adoption studies over decades**.
506 - - **Clear, replicable trend** demonstrating the increasing role of genetics in intelligence.
507 -
508 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
509 - - Findings apply primarily to **Western industrialized nations**, limiting generalizability.
510 - - **Lack of neurobiological mechanisms** explaining how genes express their influence over time.
511 -
512 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
513 - - Future research should investigate **gene-environment interactions in cognitive aging**.
514 - - Examine **heritability trends in non-Western populations** to determine cross-cultural consistency.
515 -
516 -----
517 -
518 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
519 -- Provides **strong evidence for the genetic basis of intelligence**.
520 -- Highlights the **diminishing role of shared environment in cognitive development**.
521 -- Supports research on **cognitive aging and heritability across the lifespan**.##
522 -
523 -----
524 -
525 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
526 -
527 -1. Investigate **neurogenetic pathways underlying IQ development**.
528 -2. Examine **how education and socioeconomic factors interact with genetic IQ influences**.
529 -3. Study **heritability trends in aging populations and cognitive decline**.
530 -
531 -----
532 -
533 -## **Summary of Research Study**
534 -This study documents **The Wilson Effect**, demonstrating how the **heritability of IQ increases throughout development**, reaching a plateau of **0.80 by adulthood**. The findings indicate that **shared environmental effects diminish with age**, while **genetic influences on intelligence strengthen**. Using **longitudinal twin and adoption data**, the research provides **strong empirical support for the increasing role of genetics in cognitive ability over time**.##
535 -
536 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
537 -
538 -----
539 -
540 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
541 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1017_thg.2013.54.pdf]]##
542 -{{/expand}}
543 -
544 -
545 -== Study: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications ==
546 -
547 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"}}
548 -**Source:** *Medical Hypotheses (Elsevier)*
549 -**Date of Publication:** *2010*
550 -**Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley*
551 -**Title:** *"Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"*
552 -**DOI:** [10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046)
553 -**Subject Matter:** *Human Taxonomy, Evolutionary Biology, Anthropology* 
554 -
555 -----
556 -
557 -## **Key Statistics**##
558 -
559 -1. **General Observations:**
560 - - The study argues that **Homo sapiens is polytypic**, meaning it consists of multiple subspecies rather than a single monotypic species.
561 - - Examines **genetic diversity, morphological variation, and evolutionary lineage** in humans.
562 -
563 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
564 - - Discusses **four primary definitions of race/subspecies**: Essentialist, Taxonomic, Population-based, and Lineage-based.
565 - - Suggests that **human heterozygosity levels are comparable to species that are classified as polytypic**.
566 -
567 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
568 - - The study evaluates **FST values (genetic differentiation measure)** and argues that human genetic differentiation is comparable to that of recognized subspecies in other species.
569 - - Considers **phylogenetic species concepts** in defining human variation.
570 -
571 -----
572 -
573 -## **Findings**##
574 -
575 -1. **Primary Observations:**
576 - - Proposes that **modern human populations meet biological criteria for subspecies classification**.
577 - - Highlights **medical and evolutionary implications** of human taxonomic diversity.
578 -
579 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
580 - - Discusses **how race concepts evolved over time** in biological sciences.
581 - - Compares **human diversity with that of other primates** such as chimpanzees and gorillas.
582 -
583 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
584 - - Evaluates how **genetic markers correlate with population structure**.
585 - - Addresses the **controversy over race classification in modern anthropology**.
586 -
587 -----
588 -
589 -## **Critique and Observations**##
590 -
591 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
592 - - Uses **comparative species analysis** to assess human classification.
593 - - Provides a **biological perspective** on the race concept, moving beyond social constructivism arguments.
594 -
595 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
596 - - Controversial topic with **strong opposing views in anthropology and genetics**.
597 - - **Relies on broad genetic trends**, but does not analyze individual-level genetic variation in depth.
598 -
599 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
600 - - Further research should **incorporate whole-genome studies** to refine subspecies classifications.
601 - - Investigate **how admixture affects taxonomic classification over time**.
602 -
603 -----
604 -
605 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
606 -- Contributes to discussions on **evolutionary taxonomy and species classification**.
607 -- Provides evidence on **genetic differentiation among human populations**.
608 -- Highlights **historical and contemporary scientific debates on race and human variation**.##
609 -
610 -----
611 -
612 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
613 -
614 -1. Examine **FST values in modern and ancient human populations**.
615 -2. Investigate how **adaptive evolution influences population differentiation**.
616 -3. Explore **the impact of genetic diversity on medical treatments and disease susceptibility**.
617 -
618 -----
619 -
620 -## **Summary of Research Study**
621 -This study evaluates **whether Homo sapiens should be classified as a polytypic species**, analyzing **genetic diversity, evolutionary lineage, and morphological variation**. Using comparative analysis with other primates and mammals, the research suggests that **human populations meet biological criteria for subspecies classification**, with implications for **evolutionary biology, anthropology, and medicine**.##
622 -
623 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
624 -
625 -----
626 -
627 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
628 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.mehy.2009.07.046.pdf]]##
629 -{{/expand}}
630 -
631 -
632 -== Study: Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media ==
633 -
634 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"}}
635 -**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
636 -**Date of Publication:** *2019*
637 -**Author(s):** *Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, Thomas R. Coyle*
638 -**Title:** *"Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"*
639 -**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406)
640 -**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Intelligence Research, Expert Analysis* 
641 -
642 -----
643 -
644 -## **Key Statistics**##
645 -
646 -1. **General Observations:**
647 - - Survey of **102 experts** on intelligence research and public discourse.
648 - - Evaluated experts' backgrounds, political affiliations, and views on controversial topics in intelligence research.
649 -
650 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
651 - - **90% of experts were from Western countries**, and **83% were male**.
652 - - Political spectrum ranged from **54% left-liberal, 24% conservative**, with significant ideological influences on views.
653 -
654 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
655 - - Experts rated media coverage of intelligence research as **poor (avg. 3.1 on a 9-point scale)**.
656 - - **50% of experts attributed US Black-White IQ differences to genetic factors, 50% to environmental factors**.
657 -
658 -----
659 -
660 -## **Findings**##
661 -
662 -1. **Primary Observations:**
663 - - Experts overwhelmingly support **the g-factor theory of intelligence**.
664 - - **Heritability of intelligence** was widely accepted, though views differed on race and group differences.
665 -
666 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
667 - - **Left-leaning experts were more likely to reject genetic explanations for group IQ differences**.
668 - - **Right-leaning experts tended to favor a stronger role for genetic factors** in intelligence disparities.
669 -
670 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
671 - - The study compared **media coverage of intelligence research** with expert opinions.
672 - - Found a **disconnect between journalists and intelligence researchers**, especially regarding politically sensitive issues.
673 -
674 -----
675 -
676 -## **Critique and Observations**##
677 -
678 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
679 - - **Largest expert survey on intelligence research** to date.
680 - - Provides insight into **how political orientation influences scientific perspectives**.
681 -
682 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
683 - - **Sample primarily from Western countries**, limiting global perspectives.
684 - - Self-selection bias may skew responses toward **those more willing to engage with controversial topics**.
685 -
686 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
687 - - Future studies should include **a broader range of global experts**.
688 - - Additional research needed on **media biases and misrepresentation of intelligence research**.
689 -
690 -----
691 -
692 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
693 -- Provides insight into **expert consensus and division on intelligence research**.
694 -- Highlights the **role of media bias** in shaping public perception of intelligence science.
695 -- Useful for understanding **the intersection of science, politics, and public discourse** on intelligence research.##
696 -
697 -----
698 -
699 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
700 -
701 -1. Examine **cross-national differences** in expert opinions on intelligence.
702 -2. Investigate how **media bias impacts public understanding of intelligence research**.
703 -3. Conduct follow-up studies with **a more diverse expert pool** to test findings.
704 -
705 -----
706 -
707 -## **Summary of Research Study**
708 -This study surveys **expert opinions on intelligence research**, analyzing **how backgrounds, political ideologies, and media representation influence perspectives on intelligence**. The findings highlight **divisions in scientific consensus**, particularly on **genetic vs. environmental causes of IQ disparities**. Additionally, the research uncovers **widespread dissatisfaction with media portrayals of intelligence research**, pointing to **the impact of ideological biases on public discourse**.##
709 -
710 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
711 -
712 -----
713 -
714 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
715 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2019.101406.pdf]]##
716 -{{/expand}}
717 -
718 -
719 -== Study: A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation ==
720 -
721 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"}}
722 -**Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
723 -**Date of Publication:** *2015*
724 -**Author(s):** *Davide Piffer*
725 -**Title:** *"A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"*
726 -**DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008)
727 -**Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Intelligence, GWAS, Population Differences* 
728 -
729 -----
730 -
731 -## **Key Statistics**##
732 -
733 -1. **General Observations:**
734 - - Study analyzed **genome-wide association studies (GWAS) hits** linked to intelligence.
735 - - Found a **strong correlation (r = .91) between polygenic intelligence scores and national IQ levels**.
736 -
737 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
738 - - Factor analysis of **9 intelligence-associated alleles** revealed a metagene correlated with **country IQ (r = .86)**.
739 - - **Allele frequencies varied significantly by continent**, aligning with observed population differences in cognitive ability.
740 -
741 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
742 - - GWAS intelligence SNPs predicted **IQ levels more strongly than random genetic markers**.
743 - - Genetic differentiation (Fst values) showed that **selection pressure, rather than drift, influenced intelligence-related allele distributions**.
744 -
745 -----
746 -
747 -## **Findings**##
748 -
749 -1. **Primary Observations:**
750 - - Intelligence-associated SNP frequencies correlate **highly with national IQ levels**.
751 - - Genetic selection for intelligence appears **stronger than selection for height-related genes**.
752 -
753 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
754 - - **East Asian populations** exhibited the **highest frequencies of intelligence-associated alleles**.
755 - - **African populations** showed lower frequencies compared to European and East Asian populations.
756 -
757 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
758 - - Polygenic scores using **intelligence-related alleles significantly outperformed random SNPs** in predicting IQ.
759 - - Selection pressures **may explain differences in global intelligence distribution** beyond genetic drift effects.
760 -
761 -----
762 -
763 -## **Critique and Observations**##
764 -
765 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
766 - - **Comprehensive genetic analysis** of intelligence-linked SNPs.
767 - - Uses **multiple statistical methods (factor analysis, Fst analysis) to confirm results**.
768 -
769 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
770 - - **Correlation does not imply causation**; factors beyond genetics influence intelligence.
771 - - **Limited number of GWAS-identified intelligence alleles**—future studies may identify more.
772 -
773 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
774 - - Larger **cross-population GWAS studies** needed to validate findings.
775 - - Investigate **non-genetic contributors to IQ variance** in addition to genetic factors.
776 -
777 -----
778 -
779 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
780 -- Supports research on **genetic influences on intelligence at a population level**.
781 -- Aligns with broader discussions on **cognitive genetics and natural selection effects**.
782 -- Provides a **quantitative framework for analyzing polygenic selection in intelligence studies**.##
783 -
784 -----
785 -
786 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
787 -
788 -1. Conduct **expanded GWAS studies** including diverse populations.
789 -2. Investigate **gene-environment interactions influencing intelligence**.
790 -3. Explore **historical selection pressures shaping intelligence-related alleles**.
791 -
792 -----
793 -
794 -## **Summary of Research Study**
795 -This study reviews **genome-wide association study (GWAS) findings on intelligence**, demonstrating a **strong correlation between polygenic intelligence scores and national IQ levels**. The research highlights how **genetic selection may explain population-level cognitive differences beyond genetic drift effects**. Intelligence-linked alleles showed **higher variability across populations than height-related alleles**, suggesting stronger selection pressures.  ##
796 -
797 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
798 -
799 -----
800 -
801 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
802 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2015.08.008.pdf]]##
803 -{{/expand}}
804 -
805 -
806 -== Study: Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding ==
807 -
808 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Click here to expand details"}}
809 -**Source:** Journal of Genetic Epidemiology
810 -**Date of Publication:** 2024-01-15
811 -**Author(s):** Smith et al.
812 -**Title:** "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies"
813 -**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235](https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235)
814 -**Subject Matter:** Genetics, Social Science 
815 -
816 -**Tags:** `Genetics` `Race & Ethnicity` `Biomedical Research`
817 -
818 -=== **Key Statistics** ===
819 -
820 -1. **General Observations:**
821 - - A near-perfect alignment between self-identified race/ethnicity (SIRE) and genetic ancestry was observed.
822 - - Misclassification rate: **0.14%**.
823 -
824 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
825 - - Four groups analyzed: **White, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic**.
826 - - Hispanic genetic clusters showed significant European and Native American lineage.
827 -
828 -=== **Findings** ===
829 -
830 -- Self-identified race strongly aligns with genetic ancestry.
831 -- Minor discrepancies exist but do not significantly impact classification.
832 -
833 -=== **Relevance to Subproject** ===
834 -
835 -- Reinforces the reliability of **self-reported racial identity** in genetic research.
836 -- Highlights **policy considerations** in biomedical studies.
837 -{{/expand}}
838 -
839 -
840 -----
841 -
842 -= Dating and Interpersonal Relationships =
843 -
844 -
845 -== Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018 ==
846 -
847 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"}}
136 +{{expand title="Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018" expanded="false"}}
848 848  **Source:** *JAMA Network Open*
849 849  **Date of Publication:** *2020*
850 850  **Author(s):** *Ueda P, Mercer CH, Ghaznavi C, Herbenick D.*
851 851  **Title:** *"Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"*
852 852  **DOI:** [10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833)
853 -**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Sexual Behavior, Demography* 
142 +**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Sexual Behavior, Demography*
854 854  
855 -----
144 +---
856 856  
857 -## **Key Statistics**##
858 -
146 +## **Key Statistics**
859 859  1. **General Observations:**
860 860   - Study analyzed **General Social Survey (2000-2018)** data.
861 861   - Found **declining trends in sexual activity** among young adults.
... ... @@ -868,10 +868,9 @@
868 868   - Frequency of sexual activity decreased by **8-10%** over the studied period.
869 869   - Number of sexual partners remained **relatively stable** despite declining activity rates.
870 870  
871 -----
159 +---
872 872  
873 -## **Findings**##
874 -
161 +## **Findings**
875 875  1. **Primary Observations:**
876 876   - A significant decline in sexual frequency, especially among **younger men**.
877 877   - Shifts in relationship dynamics and economic stressors may contribute to the trend.
... ... @@ -884,10 +884,9 @@
884 884   - **Mental health and employment status** were correlated with decreased activity.
885 885   - Social factors such as **screen time and digital entertainment consumption** are potential contributors.
886 886  
887 -----
174 +---
888 888  
889 -## **Critique and Observations**##
890 -
176 +## **Critique and Observations**
891 891  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
892 892   - **Large sample size** from a nationally representative dataset.
893 893   - **Longitudinal design** enables trend analysis over time.
... ... @@ -900,27 +900,26 @@
900 900   - Further studies should incorporate **qualitative data** on behavioral shifts.
901 901   - Additional factors such as **economic shifts and social media usage** need exploration.
902 902  
903 -----
189 +---
904 904  
905 905  ## **Relevance to Subproject**
906 906  - Provides evidence on **changing demographic behaviors** in relation to relationships and social interactions.
907 -- Highlights the role of **mental health, employment, and societal changes** in personal behaviors.##
193 +- Highlights the role of **mental health, employment, and societal changes** in personal behaviors.
908 908  
909 -----
195 +---
910 910  
911 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
912 -
197 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
913 913  1. Investigate the **impact of digital media consumption** on relationship dynamics.
914 914  2. Examine **regional and cultural differences** in sexual activity trends.
915 915  
916 -----
201 +---
917 917  
918 918  ## **Summary of Research Study**
919 -This study examines **trends in sexual frequency and number of partners among U.S. adults (2000-2018)**, highlighting significant **declines in sexual activity, particularly among young men**. The research utilized **General Social Survey data** to analyze the impact of **sociodemographic factors, employment status, and mental well-being** on sexual behavior.  ##
204 +This study examines **trends in sexual frequency and number of partners among U.S. adults (2000-2018)**, highlighting significant **declines in sexual activity, particularly among young men**. The research utilized **General Social Survey data** to analyze the impact of **sociodemographic factors, employment status, and mental well-being** on sexual behavior.
920 920  
921 921  This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study's contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
922 922  
923 -----
208 +---
924 924  
925 925  ## **📄 Download Full Study**
926 926  {{velocity}}
... ... @@ -930,111 +930,25 @@
930 930  [[Download>>attach:$filename]]
931 931  #else
932 932  {{html}}<span style="color: red; font-weight: bold;">🚨 PDF Not Available 🚨</span>{{/html}}
933 -#end {{/velocity}}##
934 -{{/expand}}
218 +#end
219 +{{/velocity}}
935 935  
936 -
937 -== Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis ==
938 -
939 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"}}
940 -**Source:** *Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica*
941 -**Date of Publication:** *2012*
942 -**Author(s):** *Ravisha M. Srinivasjois, Shreya Shah, Prakesh S. Shah, Knowledge Synthesis Group on Determinants of Preterm/LBW Births*
943 -**Title:** *"Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"*
944 -**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x)
945 -**Subject Matter:** *Neonatal Health, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Racial Disparities* 
946 -
947 -----
948 -
949 -## **Key Statistics**##
950 -
951 -1. **General Observations:**
952 - - Meta-analysis of **26,335,596 singleton births** from eight studies.
953 - - **Higher risk of adverse birth outcomes in biracial couples** than White couples, but lower than Black couples.
954 -
955 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
956 - - **Maternal race had a stronger influence than paternal race** on birth outcomes.
957 - - **Black mother–White father (BMWF) couples** had a higher risk than **White mother–Black father (WMBF) couples**.
958 -
959 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
960 - - **Adjusted Odds Ratios (aORs) for key outcomes:**
961 - - **Low birthweight (LBW):** WMBF (1.21), BMWF (1.75), Black mother–Black father (BMBF) (2.08).
962 - - **Preterm births (PTB):** WMBF (1.17), BMWF (1.37), BMBF (1.78).
963 - - **Stillbirths:** WMBF (1.43), BMWF (1.51), BMBF (1.85).
964 -
965 -----
966 -
967 -## **Findings**##
968 -
969 -1. **Primary Observations:**
970 - - **Biracial couples face a gradient of risk**: higher than White couples but lower than Black couples.
971 - - **Maternal race plays a more significant role** in pregnancy outcomes.
972 -
973 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
974 - - **Black mothers (regardless of paternal race) had the highest risk of LBW and PTB**.
975 - - **White mothers with Black fathers had a lower risk** than Black mothers with White fathers.
976 -
977 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
978 - - The **weathering hypothesis** suggests that **long-term stress exposure** contributes to higher adverse birth risks in Black mothers.
979 - - **Genetic and environmental factors** may interact to influence birth outcomes.
980 -
981 -----
982 -
983 -## **Critique and Observations**##
984 -
985 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
986 - - **Largest meta-analysis** on racial disparities in birth outcomes.
987 - - Uses **adjusted statistical models** to account for confounding variables.
988 -
989 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
990 - - Data limited to **Black-White biracial couples**, excluding other racial groups.
991 - - **Socioeconomic and healthcare access factors** not fully explored.
992 -
993 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
994 - - Future studies should examine **Asian, Hispanic, and Indigenous biracial couples**.
995 - - Investigate **long-term health effects on infants from biracial pregnancies**.
996 -
997 -----
998 -
999 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1000 -- Provides **critical insights into racial disparities** in maternal and infant health.
1001 -- Supports **research on genetic and environmental influences on neonatal health**.
1002 -- Highlights **how maternal race plays a more significant role than paternal race** in birth outcomes.##
1003 -
1004 -----
1005 -
1006 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1007 -
1008 -1. Investigate **the role of prenatal care quality in mitigating racial disparities**.
1009 -2. Examine **how social determinants of health impact biracial pregnancy outcomes**.
1010 -3. Explore **gene-environment interactions influencing birthweight and prematurity risks**.
1011 -
1012 -----
1013 -
1014 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1015 -This meta-analysis examines **the impact of biracial parentage on birth outcomes**, showing that **biracial couples face a higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes than White couples but lower than Black couples**. The findings emphasize **maternal race as a key factor in birth risks**, with **Black mothers having the highest rates of preterm birth and low birthweight, regardless of paternal race**.##
1016 -
1017 -----
1018 -
1019 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1020 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1600-0412.2012.01501.xAbstract.pdf]]##
1021 1021  {{/expand}}
1022 1022  
223 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
1023 1023  
1024 -== Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness ==
1025 1025  
1026 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"}}
226 +{{expand title="Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness" expanded="false"}}
1027 1027  **Source:** *Current Psychology*
1028 1028  **Date of Publication:** *2024*
1029 1029  **Author(s):** *Brandon Sparks, Alexandra M. Zidenberg, Mark E. Olver*
1030 1030  **Title:** *"One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"*
1031 1031  **DOI:** [10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z)
1032 -**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Mental Health, Social Isolation* 
232 +**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Mental Health, Social Isolation*
1033 1033  
1034 -----
234 +---
1035 1035  
1036 -## **Key Statistics**##
1037 -
236 +## **Key Statistics**
1038 1038  1. **General Observations:**
1039 1039   - Study analyzed **67 self-identified incels** and **103 non-incel men**.
1040 1040   - Incels reported **higher loneliness and lower social support** compared to non-incels.
... ... @@ -1047,10 +1047,9 @@
1047 1047   - 95% of incels in the study reported **having depression**, with 38% receiving a formal diagnosis.
1048 1048   - **Higher externalization of blame** was linked to stronger incel identification.
1049 1049  
1050 -----
249 +---
1051 1051  
1052 -## **Findings**##
1053 -
251 +## **Findings**
1054 1054  1. **Primary Observations:**
1055 1055   - Incels experience **heightened rejection sensitivity and loneliness**.
1056 1056   - Lack of social support correlates with **worse mental health outcomes**.
... ... @@ -1063,10 +1063,9 @@
1063 1063   - Incels **engaged in fewer positive coping mechanisms** such as emotional support or positive reframing.
1064 1064   - Instead, they relied on **solitary coping strategies**, worsening their isolation.
1065 1065  
1066 -----
264 +---
1067 1067  
1068 -## **Critique and Observations**##
1069 -
266 +## **Critique and Observations**
1070 1070  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1071 1071   - **First quantitative study** on incels’ social isolation and mental health.
1072 1072   - **Robust sample size** and validated psychological measures.
... ... @@ -1079,303 +1079,37 @@
1079 1079   - Future studies should **compare incel forum users vs. non-users**.
1080 1080   - Investigate **potential intervention strategies** for social integration.
1081 1081  
1082 -----
279 +---
1083 1083  
1084 1084  ## **Relevance to Subproject**
1085 1085  - Highlights **mental health vulnerabilities** within the incel community.
1086 1086  - Supports research on **loneliness, attachment styles, and social dominance orientation**.
1087 -- Examines how **peer rejection influences self-perceived mate value**.##
284 +- Examines how **peer rejection influences self-perceived mate value**.
1088 1088  
1089 -----
286 +---
1090 1090  
1091 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1092 -
288 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1093 1093  1. Explore how **online community participation** affects incel mental health.
1094 1094  2. Investigate **cognitive biases** influencing self-perceived rejection among incels.
1095 1095  3. Assess **therapeutic interventions** to address incel social isolation.
1096 1096  
1097 -----
293 +---
1098 1098  
1099 1099  ## **Summary of Research Study**
1100 -This study examines the **psychological characteristics of self-identified incels**, comparing them with non-incel men in terms of **mental health, loneliness, and coping strategies**. The research found **higher depression, anxiety, and avoidant attachment styles among incels**, as well as **greater reliance on solitary coping mechanisms**. It suggests that **lack of social support plays a critical role in exacerbating incel identity and related mental health concerns**.##
296 +This study examines the **psychological characteristics of self-identified incels**, comparing them with non-incel men in terms of **mental health, loneliness, and coping strategies**. The research found **higher depression, anxiety, and avoidant attachment styles among incels**, as well as **greater reliance on solitary coping mechanisms**. It suggests that **lack of social support plays a critical role in exacerbating incel identity and related mental health concerns**.
1101 1101  
1102 1102  This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1103 1103  
1104 -----
300 +---
1105 1105  
1106 1106  ## **📄 Download Full Study**
1107 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1007_s12144-023-04275-z.pdf]]##
1108 -{{/expand}}
303 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1007_s12144-023-04275-z.pdf]]
1109 1109  
1110 -
1111 -= Crime and Substance Abuse =
1112 -
1113 -
1114 -== Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program ==
1115 -
1116 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"}}
1117 -**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1118 -**Date of Publication:** *2002*
1119 -**Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
1120 -**Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
1121 -**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
1122 -**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts* 
1123 -
1124 -----
1125 -
1126 -## **Key Statistics**##
1127 -
1128 -1. **General Observations:**
1129 - - Study examined **drug treatment court success rates** among first-time offenders.
1130 - - Strongest predictors of **successful completion were employment status and race**.
1131 -
1132 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1133 - - Individuals with **stable jobs were more likely to complete the program**.
1134 - - **Black participants had lower success rates**, suggesting potential systemic disparities.
1135 -
1136 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1137 - - **Education level was positively correlated** with program completion.
1138 - - Frequency of **drug use before enrollment affected treatment outcomes**.
1139 -
1140 -----
1141 -
1142 -## **Findings**##
1143 -
1144 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1145 - - **Social stability factors** (employment, education) were key to treatment success.
1146 - - **Race and pre-existing substance use patterns** influenced completion rates.
1147 -
1148 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1149 - - White offenders had **higher completion rates** than Black offenders.
1150 - - Drug court success was **higher for those with lower initial drug use frequency**.
1151 -
1152 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1153 - - **Individuals with strong social ties were more likely to finish the program**.
1154 - - Success rates were **significantly higher for participants with case management support**.
1155 -
1156 -----
1157 -
1158 -## **Critique and Observations**##
1159 -
1160 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1161 - - **First empirical study on drug court program success factors**.
1162 - - Uses **longitudinal data** for post-treatment analysis.
1163 -
1164 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1165 - - Lacks **qualitative data on personal motivation and treatment engagement**.
1166 - - Focuses on **short-term program success** without tracking **long-term relapse rates**.
1167 -
1168 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1169 - - Future research should examine **racial disparities in drug court outcomes**.
1170 - - Study **how community resources impact long-term recovery**.
1171 -
1172 -----
1173 -
1174 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1175 -- Provides insight into **what factors contribute to drug court program success**.
1176 -- Highlights **racial disparities in criminal justice-based rehabilitation programs**.
1177 -- Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.##
1178 -
1179 -----
1180 -
1181 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1182 -
1183 -1. Investigate **the role of mental health in drug court success rates**.
1184 -2. Assess **long-term relapse prevention strategies post-treatment**.
1185 -3. Explore **alternative diversion programs beyond traditional drug courts**.
1186 -
1187 -----
1188 -
1189 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1190 -This study examines **factors influencing the completion of drug treatment court programs**, identifying **employment, education, and race as key predictors**. The research underscores **systemic disparities in drug court outcomes**, emphasizing the need for **improved support systems for at-risk populations**.##
1191 -
1192 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1193 -
1194 -----
1195 -
1196 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1197 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120014424.pdf]]##
1198 1198  {{/expand}}
1199 1199  
307 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
1200 1200  
1201 -== Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys ==
1202 -
1203 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"}}
1204 -**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1205 -**Date of Publication:** *2003*
1206 -**Author(s):** *Timothy P. Johnson, Phillip J. Bowman*
1207 -**Title:** *"Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"*
1208 -**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120023394](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120023394)
1209 -**Subject Matter:** *Survey Methodology, Racial Disparities, Substance Use Research* 
1210 -
1211 -----
1212 -
1213 -## **Key Statistics**##
1214 -
1215 -1. **General Observations:**
1216 - - Study examined **how racial and cultural factors influence self-reported substance use data**.
1217 - - Analyzed **36 empirical studies from 1977–2003** on survey reliability across racial/ethnic groups.
1218 -
1219 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1220 - - Black and Latino respondents **were more likely to underreport drug use** compared to White respondents.
1221 - - **Cultural stigma and distrust in research institutions** affected self-report accuracy.
1222 -
1223 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1224 - - **Surveys using biological validation (urinalysis, hair tests) revealed underreporting trends**.
1225 - - **Higher recantation rates** (denying past drug use) were observed among minority respondents.
1226 -
1227 -----
1228 -
1229 -## **Findings**##
1230 -
1231 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1232 - - Racial/ethnic disparities in **substance use reporting bias survey-based research**.
1233 - - **Social desirability and cultural norms impact data reliability**.
1234 -
1235 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1236 - - White respondents were **more likely to overreport** substance use.
1237 - - Black and Latino respondents **had higher recantation rates**, particularly in face-to-face interviews.
1238 -
1239 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1240 - - Mode of survey administration **significantly influenced reporting accuracy**.
1241 - - **Self-administered surveys produced more reliable data than interviewer-administered surveys**.
1242 -
1243 -----
1244 -
1245 -## **Critique and Observations**##
1246 -
1247 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1248 - - **Comprehensive review of 36 studies** on measurement error in substance use reporting.
1249 - - Identifies **systemic biases affecting racial/ethnic survey reliability**.
1250 -
1251 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1252 - - Relies on **secondary data analysis**, limiting direct experimental control.
1253 - - Does not explore **how measurement error impacts policy decisions**.
1254 -
1255 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1256 - - Future research should **incorporate mixed-method approaches** (qualitative & quantitative).
1257 - - Investigate **how survey design can reduce racial reporting disparities**.
1258 -
1259 -----
1260 -
1261 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1262 -- Supports research on **racial disparities in self-reported health behaviors**.
1263 -- Highlights **survey methodology issues that impact substance use epidemiology**.
1264 -- Provides insights for **improving data accuracy in public health research**.##
1265 -
1266 -----
1267 -
1268 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1269 -
1270 -1. Investigate **how survey design impacts racial disparities in self-reported health data**.
1271 -2. Study **alternative data collection methods (biometric validation, passive data tracking)**.
1272 -3. Explore **the role of social stigma in self-reported health behaviors**.
1273 -
1274 -----
1275 -
1276 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1277 -This study examines **cross-cultural biases in self-reported substance use surveys**, showing that **racial/ethnic minorities are more likely to underreport drug use** due to **social stigma, research distrust, and survey administration methods**. The findings highlight **critical issues in public health data collection and the need for improved survey design**.##
1278 -
1279 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1280 -
1281 -----
1282 -
1283 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1284 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120023394.pdf]]##
1285 -{{/expand}}
1286 -
1287 -
1288 -== Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program ==
1289 -
1290 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"}}
1291 -**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1292 -**Date of Publication:** *2002*
1293 -**Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
1294 -**Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
1295 -**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
1296 -**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts* 
1297 -
1298 -----
1299 -
1300 -## **Key Statistics**##
1301 -
1302 -1. **General Observations:**
1303 - - Study examined **drug treatment court success rates** among first-time offenders.
1304 - - Strongest predictors of **successful completion were employment status and race**.
1305 -
1306 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1307 - - Individuals with **stable jobs were more likely to complete the program**.
1308 - - **Black participants had lower success rates**, suggesting potential systemic disparities.
1309 -
1310 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1311 - - **Education level was positively correlated** with program completion.
1312 - - Frequency of **drug use before enrollment affected treatment outcomes**.
1313 -
1314 -----
1315 -
1316 -## **Findings**##
1317 -
1318 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1319 - - **Social stability factors** (employment, education) were key to treatment success.
1320 - - **Race and pre-existing substance use patterns** influenced completion rates.
1321 -
1322 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1323 - - White offenders had **higher completion rates** than Black offenders.
1324 - - Drug court success was **higher for those with lower initial drug use frequency**.
1325 -
1326 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1327 - - **Individuals with strong social ties were more likely to finish the program**.
1328 - - Success rates were **significantly higher for participants with case management support**.
1329 -
1330 -----
1331 -
1332 -## **Critique and Observations**##
1333 -
1334 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1335 - - **First empirical study on drug court program success factors**.
1336 - - Uses **longitudinal data** for post-treatment analysis.
1337 -
1338 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1339 - - Lacks **qualitative data on personal motivation and treatment engagement**.
1340 - - Focuses on **short-term program success** without tracking **long-term relapse rates**.
1341 -
1342 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1343 - - Future research should examine **racial disparities in drug court outcomes**.
1344 - - Study **how community resources impact long-term recovery**.
1345 -
1346 -----
1347 -
1348 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1349 -- Provides insight into **what factors contribute to drug court program success**.
1350 -- Highlights **racial disparities in criminal justice-based rehabilitation programs**.
1351 -- Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.##
1352 -
1353 -----
1354 -
1355 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1356 -
1357 -1. Investigate **the role of mental health in drug court success rates**.
1358 -2. Assess **long-term relapse prevention strategies post-treatment**.
1359 -3. Explore **alternative diversion programs beyond traditional drug courts**.
1360 -
1361 -----
1362 -
1363 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1364 -This study examines **factors influencing the completion of drug treatment court programs**, identifying **employment, education, and race as key predictors**. The research underscores **systemic disparities in drug court outcomes**, emphasizing the need for **improved support systems for at-risk populations**.##
1365 -
1366 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1367 -
1368 -----
1369 -
1370 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1371 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120014424.pdf]]##
1372 -{{/expand}}
1373 -
1374 -
1375 -== Study: Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults ==
1376 -
1377 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults"}}
1378 - Source: Addictive Behaviors
309 +{{expand title="Study: Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults" expanded="false"}} Source: Addictive Behaviors
1379 1379  Date of Publication: 2016
1380 1380  Author(s): Andrea Hussong, Christy Capron, Gregory T. Smith, Jennifer L. Maggs
1381 1381  Title: "Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults"
... ... @@ -1436,23 +1436,22 @@
1436 1436  
1437 1437  📄 Download Full Study
1438 1438  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.addbeh.2016.02.030.pdf]]
370 +
1439 1439  {{/expand}}
1440 1440  
373 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
1441 1441  
1442 -== Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time? ==
1443 -
1444 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"}}
375 +{{expand title="Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?" expanded="false"}}
1445 1445  **Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
1446 1446  **Date of Publication:** *2014*
1447 1447  **Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley, Jan te Nijenhuis, Raegan Murphy*
1448 1448  **Title:** *"Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"*
1449 1449  **DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.012](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.012)
1450 -**Subject Matter:** *Cognitive Decline, Intelligence, Dysgenics* 
381 +**Subject Matter:** *Cognitive Decline, Intelligence, Dysgenics*
1451 1451  
1452 -----
383 +---
1453 1453  
1454 -## **Key Statistics**##
1455 -
385 +## **Key Statistics**
1456 1456  1. **General Observations:**
1457 1457   - The study examines reaction time data from **13 age-matched studies** spanning **1884–2004**.
1458 1458   - Results suggest an estimated **decline of 13.35 IQ points** over this period.
... ... @@ -1465,10 +1465,9 @@
1465 1465   - The estimated **dysgenic rate is 1.21 IQ points lost per decade**.
1466 1466   - Meta-regression analysis confirmed a **steady secular trend in slowing reaction time**.
1467 1467  
1468 -----
398 +---
1469 1469  
1470 -## **Findings**##
1471 -
400 +## **Findings**
1472 1472  1. **Primary Observations:**
1473 1473   - Supports the hypothesis of **intelligence decline due to genetic and environmental factors**.
1474 1474   - Reaction time, a **biomarker for cognitive ability**, has slowed significantly over time.
... ... @@ -1481,10 +1481,9 @@
1481 1481   - Cross-national comparisons indicate a **global trend in slower reaction times**.
1482 1482   - Factors like **modern neurotoxin exposure** and **reduced selective pressure for intelligence** may contribute.
1483 1483  
1484 -----
413 +---
1485 1485  
1486 -## **Critique and Observations**##
1487 -
415 +## **Critique and Observations**
1488 1488  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1489 1489   - **Comprehensive meta-analysis** covering over a century of reaction time data.
1490 1490   - **Robust statistical corrections** for measurement variance between historical and modern studies.
... ... @@ -1497,638 +1497,34 @@
1497 1497   - Future studies should **replicate results with more modern datasets**.
1498 1498   - Investigate **alternative cognitive biomarkers** for intelligence over time.
1499 1499  
1500 -----
428 +---
1501 1501  
1502 1502  ## **Relevance to Subproject**
1503 1503  - Provides evidence for **long-term intelligence trends**, contributing to research on **cognitive evolution**.
1504 1504  - Aligns with broader discussions on **dysgenics, neurophysiology, and cognitive load**.
1505 -- Supports the argument that **modern societies may be experiencing intelligence decline**.##
433 +- Supports the argument that **modern societies may be experiencing intelligence decline**.
1506 1506  
1507 -----
435 +---
1508 1508  
1509 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1510 -
437 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1511 1511  1. Investigate **genetic markers associated with reaction time** and intelligence decline.
1512 1512  2. Examine **regional variations in reaction time trends**.
1513 1513  3. Explore **cognitive resilience factors that counteract the decline**.
1514 1514  
1515 -----
442 +---
1516 1516  
1517 1517  ## **Summary of Research Study**
1518 -This study examines **historical reaction time data** as a measure of **cognitive ability and intelligence decline**, analyzing data from **Western populations between 1884 and 2004**. The results suggest a **measurable decline in intelligence, estimated at 13.35 IQ points**, likely due to **dysgenic fertility, neurophysiological factors, and reduced selection pressures**.  ##
445 +This study examines **historical reaction time data** as a measure of **cognitive ability and intelligence decline**, analyzing data from **Western populations between 1884 and 2004**. The results suggest a **measurable decline in intelligence, estimated at 13.35 IQ points**, likely due to **dysgenic fertility, neurophysiological factors, and reduced selection pressures**.
1519 1519  
1520 1520  This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1521 1521  
1522 -----
449 +---
1523 1523  
1524 1524  ## **📄 Download Full Study**
1525 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2014.05.012.pdf]]##
1526 -{{/expand}}
452 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2014.05.012.pdf]]
1527 1527  
1528 -
1529 -= Whiteness & White Guilt =
1530 -
1531 -== Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports ==
1532 -
1533 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}}
1534 -**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1535 -**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1536 -**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1537 -**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1538 -**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1539 -**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sports, Higher Education, Institutional Racism* 
1540 -
1541 -----
1542 -
1543 -## **Key Statistics**##
1544 -
1545 -1. **General Observations:**
1546 - - Analyzed **47 college athlete narratives** to explore racial disparities in non-revenue sports.
1547 - - Found three interrelated themes: **racial segregation, racial innocence, and racial protection**.
1548 -
1549 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1550 - - **Predominantly white sports programs** reinforce racial hierarchies in college athletics.
1551 - - **Recruitment policies favor white athletes** from affluent, suburban backgrounds.
1552 -
1553 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1554 - - White athletes are **socialized to remain unaware of racial privilege** in their athletic careers.
1555 - - Media and institutional narratives protect white athletes from discussions on race and systemic inequities.
1556 -
1557 -----
1558 -
1559 -## **Findings**##
1560 -
1561 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1562 - - Colleges **actively recruit white athletes** from majority-white communities.
1563 - - Institutional policies **uphold whiteness** by failing to challenge racial biases in recruitment and team culture.
1564 -
1565 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1566 - - **White athletes show limited awareness** of their racial advantage in sports.
1567 - - **Black athletes are overrepresented** in revenue-generating sports but underrepresented in non-revenue teams.
1568 -
1569 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1570 - - Examines **how sports serve as a mechanism for maintaining racial privilege** in higher education.
1571 - - Discusses the **role of athletics in reinforcing systemic segregation and exclusion**.
1572 -
1573 -----
1574 -
1575 -## **Critique and Observations**##
1576 -
1577 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1578 - - **Comprehensive qualitative analysis** of race in college sports.
1579 - - Examines **institutional conditions** that sustain racial disparities in athletics.
1580 -
1581 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1582 - - Focuses primarily on **Division I non-revenue sports**, limiting generalizability to other divisions.
1583 - - Lacks extensive **quantitative data on racial demographics** in college athletics.
1584 -
1585 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1586 - - Future research should **compare recruitment policies across different sports and divisions**.
1587 - - Investigate **how athletic scholarships contribute to racial inequities in higher education**.
1588 -
1589 -----
1590 -
1591 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1592 -- Provides evidence of **systemic racial biases** in college sports recruitment.
1593 -- Highlights **how institutional policies protect whiteness** in non-revenue athletics.
1594 -- Supports research on **diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in sports and education**.##
1595 -
1596 -----
1597 -
1598 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1599 -
1600 -1. Investigate how **racial stereotypes influence college athlete recruitment**.
1601 -2. Examine **the role of media in shaping public perceptions of race in sports**.
1602 -3. Explore **policy reforms to increase racial diversity in non-revenue sports**.
1603 -
1604 -----
1605 -
1606 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1607 -This study explores how **racial segregation, innocence, and protection** sustain whiteness in college sports. By analyzing **47 athlete narratives**, the research reveals **how predominantly white sports programs recruit and retain white athletes** while shielding them from discussions on race. The findings highlight **institutional biases that maintain racial privilege in athletics**, offering critical insight into the **structural inequalities in higher education sports programs**.##
1608 -
1609 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1610 -
1611 -----
1612 -
1613 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1614 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1037_dhe0000140.pdf]]##
1615 1615  {{/expand}}
1616 1616  
456 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
1617 1617  
1618 -== Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations ==
1619 1619  
1620 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
1621 -**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1622 -**Date of Publication:** *2016*
1623 -**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axta, M. Norman Oliver*
1624 -**Title:** *"Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs About Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites"*
1625 -**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1626 -**Subject Matter:** *Health Disparities, Racial Bias, Medical Treatment* 
1627 -
1628 -----
1629 -
1630 -## **Key Statistics**##
1631 -
1632 -1. **General Observations:**
1633 - - Study analyzed **racial disparities in pain perception and treatment recommendations**.
1634 - - Found that **white laypeople and medical students endorsed false beliefs about biological differences** between Black and white individuals.
1635 -
1636 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1637 - - **50% of medical students surveyed endorsed at least one false belief about biological differences**.
1638 - - Participants who held these false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients’ pain levels**.
1639 -
1640 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1641 - - **Black patients were less likely to receive appropriate pain treatment** compared to white patients.
1642 - - The study confirmed that **historical misconceptions about racial differences still persist in modern medicine**.
1643 -
1644 -----
1645 -
1646 -## **Findings**##
1647 -
1648 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1649 - - False beliefs about biological racial differences **correlate with racial disparities in pain treatment**.
1650 - - Medical students and residents who endorsed these beliefs **showed greater racial bias in treatment recommendations**.
1651 -
1652 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1653 - - Physicians who **did not endorse these beliefs** showed **no racial bias** in treatment recommendations.
1654 - - Bias was **strongest among first-year medical students** and decreased slightly in later years of training.
1655 -
1656 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1657 - - Study participants **underestimated Black patients' pain and recommended less effective pain treatments**.
1658 - - The study suggests that **racial disparities in medical care stem, in part, from these enduring false beliefs**.
1659 -
1660 -----
1661 -
1662 -## **Critique and Observations**##
1663 -
1664 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1665 - - **First empirical study to connect false racial beliefs with medical decision-making**.
1666 - - Utilizes a **large sample of medical students and residents** from diverse institutions.
1667 -
1668 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1669 - - The study focuses on **Black vs. white disparities**, leaving other racial/ethnic groups unexplored.
1670 - - Participants' responses were based on **hypothetical medical cases, not real-world treatment decisions**.
1671 -
1672 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1673 - - Future research should examine **how these biases manifest in real clinical settings**.
1674 - - Investigate **whether medical training can correct these biases over time**.
1675 -
1676 -----
1677 -
1678 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1679 -- Highlights **racial disparities in healthcare**, specifically in pain assessment and treatment.
1680 -- Supports **research on implicit bias and its impact on medical outcomes**.
1681 -- Provides evidence for **the need to address racial bias in medical education**.##
1682 -
1683 -----
1684 -
1685 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1686 -
1687 -1. Investigate **interventions to reduce racial bias in medical decision-making**.
1688 -2. Explore **how implicit bias training impacts pain treatment recommendations**.
1689 -3. Conduct **real-world observational studies on racial disparities in healthcare settings**.
1690 -
1691 -----
1692 -
1693 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1694 -This study examines **racial bias in pain perception and treatment** among **white laypeople and medical professionals**, demonstrating that **false beliefs about biological differences contribute to disparities in pain management**. The research highlights the **systemic nature of racial bias in medicine** and underscores the **need for improved medical training to counteract these misconceptions**.##
1695 -
1696 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1697 -
1698 -----
1699 -
1700 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1701 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1516047113.pdf]]##
1702 -{{/expand}}
1703 -
1704 -
1705 -== Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans ==
1706 -
1707 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}}
1708 -**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1709 -**Date of Publication:** *2015*
1710 -**Author(s):** *Anne Case, Angus Deaton*
1711 -**Title:** *"Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st Century"*
1712 -**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1518393112](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518393112)
1713 -**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Mortality, Socioeconomic Factors* 
1714 -
1715 -----
1716 -
1717 -## **Key Statistics**##
1718 -
1719 -1. **General Observations:**
1720 - - Mortality rates among **middle-aged white non-Hispanic Americans (ages 45–54)** increased from 1999 to 2013.
1721 - - This reversal in mortality trends is unique to the U.S.; **no other wealthy country experienced a similar rise**.
1722 -
1723 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1724 - - The increase was **most pronounced among those with a high school education or less**.
1725 - - Hispanic and Black non-Hispanic mortality continued to decline over the same period.
1726 -
1727 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1728 - - Rising mortality was driven primarily by **suicide, drug and alcohol poisoning, and chronic liver disease**.
1729 - - Midlife morbidity increased as well, with more reports of **poor health, pain, and mental distress**.
1730 -
1731 -----
1732 -
1733 -## **Findings**##
1734 -
1735 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1736 - - The rise in mortality is attributed to **substance abuse, economic distress, and deteriorating mental health**.
1737 - - The increase in **suicides and opioid overdoses parallels broader socioeconomic decline**.
1738 -
1739 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1740 - - The **largest mortality increases** occurred among **whites without a college degree**.
1741 - - Chronic pain, functional limitations, and self-reported mental distress **rose significantly in affected groups**.
1742 -
1743 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1744 - - **Educational attainment was a major predictor of mortality trends**, with better-educated individuals experiencing lower mortality rates.
1745 - - Mortality among **white Americans with a college degree continued to decline**, resembling trends in other wealthy nations.
1746 -
1747 -----
1748 -
1749 -## **Critique and Observations**##
1750 -
1751 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1752 - - **First major study to highlight rising midlife mortality among U.S. whites**.
1753 - - Uses **CDC and Census mortality data spanning over a decade**.
1754 -
1755 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1756 - - Does not establish **causality** between economic decline and increased mortality.
1757 - - Lacks **granular data on opioid prescribing patterns and regional differences**.
1758 -
1759 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1760 - - Future studies should explore **how economic shifts, healthcare access, and mental health treatment contribute to these trends**.
1761 - - Further research on **racial and socioeconomic disparities in mortality trends** is needed.
1762 -
1763 -----
1764 -
1765 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1766 -- Highlights **socioeconomic and racial disparities** in health outcomes.
1767 -- Supports research on **substance abuse and mental health crises in the U.S.**.
1768 -- Provides evidence for **the role of economic instability in public health trends**.##
1769 -
1770 -----
1771 -
1772 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1773 -
1774 -1. Investigate **regional differences in rising midlife mortality**.
1775 -2. Examine the **impact of the opioid crisis on long-term health trends**.
1776 -3. Study **policy interventions aimed at reversing rising mortality rates**.
1777 -
1778 -----
1779 -
1780 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1781 -This study documents a **reversal in mortality trends among middle-aged white non-Hispanic Americans**, showing an increase in **suicide, drug overdoses, and alcohol-related deaths** from 1999 to 2013. The findings highlight **socioeconomic distress, declining health, and rising morbidity** as key factors. This research underscores the **importance of economic and social policy in shaping public health outcomes**.##
1782 -
1783 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1784 -
1785 -----
1786 -
1787 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1788 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1518393112.pdf]]##
1789 -{{/expand}}
1790 -
1791 -
1792 -== Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities? ==
1793 -
1794 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"}}
1795 -**Source:** *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies*
1796 -**Date of Publication:** *2023*
1797 -**Author(s):** *Maurice Crul, Frans Lelie, Elif Keskiner, Laure Michon, Ismintha Waldring*
1798 -**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1799 -**DOI:** [10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548](https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548)
1800 -**Subject Matter:** *Urban Sociology, Migration Studies, Integration* 
1801 -
1802 -----
1803 -
1804 -## **Key Statistics**##
1805 -
1806 -1. **General Observations:**
1807 - - Study examines the role of **people without migration background** in majority-minority cities.
1808 - - Analyzes **over 3,000 survey responses and 150 in-depth interviews** from six North-Western European cities.
1809 -
1810 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1811 - - Explores differences in **integration, social interactions, and perceptions of diversity**.
1812 - - Studies how **class, education, and neighborhood composition** affect adaptation to urban diversity.
1813 -
1814 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1815 - - The study introduces the **Becoming a Minority (BaM) project**, a large-scale investigation of urban demographic shifts.
1816 - - **People without migration background perceive diversity differently**, with some embracing and others resisting change.
1817 -
1818 -----
1819 -
1820 -## **Findings**##
1821 -
1822 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1823 - - The study **challenges traditional integration theories**, arguing that non-migrant groups also undergo adaptation processes.
1824 - - Some residents **struggle with demographic changes**, while others see diversity as an asset.
1825 -
1826 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1827 - - Young, educated individuals in urban areas **are more open to cultural diversity**.
1828 - - Older and less mobile residents **report feelings of displacement and social isolation**.
1829 -
1830 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1831 - - Examines how **people without migration background navigate majority-minority settings** in cities like Amsterdam and Vienna.
1832 - - Analyzes **whether former ethnic majority groups now perceive themselves as minorities**.
1833 -
1834 -----
1835 -
1836 -## **Critique and Observations**##
1837 -
1838 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1839 - - **Innovative approach** by examining the impact of migration on native populations.
1840 - - Uses **both qualitative and quantitative data** for robust analysis.
1841 -
1842 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1843 - - Limited to **Western European urban settings**, missing perspectives from other global regions.
1844 - - Does not fully explore **policy interventions for fostering social cohesion**.
1845 -
1846 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1847 - - Expand research to **other geographical contexts** to understand migration effects globally.
1848 - - Investigate **long-term trends in urban adaptation and community building**.
1849 -
1850 -----
1851 -
1852 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1853 -- Provides a **new perspective on urban integration**, shifting focus from migrants to native-born populations.
1854 -- Highlights the **role of social and economic power in shaping urban diversity outcomes**.
1855 -- Challenges existing **assimilation theories by showing bidirectional adaptation in diverse cities**.##
1856 -
1857 -----
1858 -
1859 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1860 -
1861 -1. Study how **local policies shape attitudes toward urban diversity**.
1862 -2. Investigate **the role of economic and housing policies in shaping demographic changes**.
1863 -3. Explore **how social networks influence perceptions of migration and diversity**.
1864 -
1865 -----
1866 -
1867 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1868 -This study examines how **people without migration background experience demographic change in majority-minority cities**. Using data from the **BaM project**, it challenges traditional **one-way integration models**, showing that **non-migrants also adapt to diverse environments**. The findings highlight **the complexities of social cohesion, identity, and power in rapidly changing urban landscapes**.##
1869 -
1870 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1871 -
1872 -----
1873 -
1874 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1875 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]##
1876 -{{/expand}}
1877 -
1878 -
1879 -= Media =
1880 -
1881 -
1882 -== Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic ==
1883 -
1884 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict"}}
1885 -**Source:** *Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication*
1886 -**Date of Publication:** *2021*
1887 -**Author(s):** *Zeynep Tufekci, Jesse Fox, Andrew Chadwick*
1888 -**Title:** *"The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict"*
1889 -**DOI:** [10.1093/jcmc/zmab003](https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab003)
1890 -**Subject Matter:** *Online Communication, Social Media, Conflict Studies* 
1891 -
1892 -----
1893 -
1894 -## **Key Statistics**##
1895 -
1896 -1. **General Observations:**
1897 - - Analyzed **over 500,000 social media interactions** related to intergroup conflict.
1898 - - Found that **computer-mediated communication (CMC) intensifies polarization**.
1899 -
1900 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1901 - - **Anonymity and reduced social cues** in CMC increased hostility.
1902 - - **Echo chambers formed more frequently in algorithm-driven environments**.
1903 -
1904 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1905 - - **Misinformation spread 3x faster** in polarized online discussions.
1906 - - Users exposed to **conflicting viewpoints were more likely to engage in retaliatory discourse**.
1907 -
1908 -----
1909 -
1910 -## **Findings**##
1911 -
1912 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1913 - - **Online interactions amplify intergroup conflict** due to selective exposure and confirmation bias.
1914 - - **Algorithmic sorting contributes to ideological segmentation**.
1915 -
1916 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1917 - - Participants with **strong pre-existing biases became more polarized** after exposure to conflicting views.
1918 - - **Moderate users were more likely to disengage** from conflict-heavy discussions.
1919 -
1920 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1921 - - **CMC increased political tribalism** in digital spaces.
1922 - - **Emotional language spread more widely** than factual content.
1923 -
1924 -----
1925 -
1926 -## **Critique and Observations**##
1927 -
1928 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1929 - - **Largest dataset** to date analyzing **CMC and intergroup conflict**.
1930 - - Uses **longitudinal data tracking user behavior over time**.
1931 -
1932 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1933 - - Lacks **qualitative analysis of user motivations**.
1934 - - Focuses on **Western social media platforms**, missing global perspectives.
1935 -
1936 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1937 - - Future studies should **analyze private messaging platforms** in conflict dynamics.
1938 - - Investigate **interventions that reduce online polarization**.
1939 -
1940 -----
1941 -
1942 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
1943 -- Explores how **digital communication influences social division**.
1944 -- Supports research on **social media regulation and conflict mitigation**.
1945 -- Provides **data on misinformation and online radicalization trends**.##
1946 -
1947 -----
1948 -
1949 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
1950 -
1951 -1. Investigate **how online anonymity affects real-world aggression**.
1952 -2. Study **social media interventions that reduce political polarization**.
1953 -3. Explore **cross-cultural differences in CMC and intergroup hostility**.
1954 -
1955 -----
1956 -
1957 -## **Summary of Research Study**
1958 -This study examines **how online communication intensifies intergroup conflict**, using a dataset of **500,000+ social media interactions**. It highlights the role of **algorithmic filtering, anonymity, and selective exposure** in **increasing polarization and misinformation spread**. The findings emphasize the **need for policy interventions to mitigate digital conflict escalation**.##
1959 -
1960 -----
1961 -
1962 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
1963 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_jcmc_zmab003.pdf]]##
1964 -{{/expand}}
1965 -
1966 -
1967 -== Study: Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions ==
1968 -
1969 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"}}
1970 -**Source:** *Politics & Policy*
1971 -**Date of Publication:** *2007*
1972 -**Author(s):** *Tyler Johnson*
1973 -**Title:** *"Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing: Explaining Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"*
1974 -**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x)
1975 -**Subject Matter:** *LGBTQ+ Rights, Public Opinion, Media Influence* 
1976 -
1977 -----
1978 -
1979 -## **Key Statistics**##
1980 -
1981 -1. **General Observations:**
1982 - - Examines **media coverage of same-sex marriage and civil unions from 2004 to 2011**.
1983 - - Analyzes how **media framing influences public opinion trends** on LGBTQ+ rights.
1984 -
1985 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1986 - - **Equality-based framing decreases opposition** to same-sex marriage.
1987 - - **Morality-based framing increases opposition** to same-sex marriage.
1988 -
1989 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1990 - - When **equality framing surpasses morality framing**, public opposition declines.
1991 - - Media framing **directly affects public attitudes** over time, shaping policy debates.
1992 -
1993 -----
1994 -
1995 -## **Findings**##
1996 -
1997 -1. **Primary Observations:**
1998 - - **Media framing plays a critical role in shaping attitudes** toward LGBTQ+ rights.
1999 - - **Equality-focused narratives** lead to greater public support for same-sex marriage.
2000 -
2001 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2002 - - **Religious and conservative audiences** respond more to morality-based framing.
2003 - - **Younger and progressive audiences** respond more to equality-based framing.
2004 -
2005 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2006 - - **Periods of increased equality framing** saw measurable **declines in opposition to LGBTQ+ rights**.
2007 - - **Major political events (elections, Supreme Court cases) influenced framing trends**.
2008 -
2009 -----
2010 -
2011 -## **Critique and Observations**##
2012 -
2013 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2014 - - **Longitudinal dataset spanning multiple election cycles**.
2015 - - Provides **quantitative analysis of how media framing shifts public opinion**.
2016 -
2017 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2018 - - Focuses **only on U.S. media coverage**, limiting global applicability.
2019 - - Does not account for **social media's growing influence** on public opinion.
2020 -
2021 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2022 - - Expand the study to **global perspectives on LGBTQ+ rights and media influence**.
2023 - - Investigate how **different media platforms (TV vs. digital media) impact opinion shifts**.
2024 -
2025 -----
2026 -
2027 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
2028 -- Explores **how media narratives shape policy support and public sentiment**.
2029 -- Highlights **the strategic importance of framing in LGBTQ+ advocacy**.
2030 -- Reinforces the need for **media literacy in understanding policy debates**.##
2031 -
2032 -----
2033 -
2034 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
2035 -
2036 -1. Examine how **social media affects framing of LGBTQ+ issues**.
2037 -2. Study **differences in framing across political media outlets**.
2038 -3. Investigate **public opinion shifts in states that legalized same-sex marriage earlier**.
2039 -
2040 -----
2041 -
2042 -## **Summary of Research Study**
2043 -This study examines **how media framing influences public attitudes on same-sex marriage and civil unions**, analyzing **news coverage from 2004 to 2011**. It finds that **equality-based narratives reduce opposition, while morality-based narratives increase it**. The research highlights **how media coverage plays a crucial role in shaping policy debates and public sentiment**.##
2044 -
2045 -----
2046 -
2047 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
2048 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x_abstract.pdf]]##
2049 -{{/expand}}
2050 -
2051 -
2052 -== Study: The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion ==
2053 -
2054 -{{expand expanded="false" title="Study: The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion"}}
2055 -**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2056 -**Date of Publication:** *2019*
2057 -**Author(s):** *Natalie Stroud, Matthew Barnidge, Shannon McGregor*
2058 -**Title:** *"The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion: Evidence from Experimental Studies"*
2059 -**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
2060 -**Subject Matter:** *Media Influence, Political Communication, Persuasion* 
2061 -
2062 -----
2063 -
2064 -## **Key Statistics**##
2065 -
2066 -1. **General Observations:**
2067 - - Conducted **12 experimental studies** on **digital media's impact on political beliefs**.
2068 - - **58% of participants** showed shifts in political opinion based on online content.
2069 -
2070 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
2071 - - **Video-based content was 2x more persuasive** than text-based content.
2072 - - Participants **under age 35 were more susceptible to political messaging shifts**.
2073 -
2074 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
2075 - - **Interactive media (comment sections, polls) increased political engagement**.
2076 - - **Exposure to counterarguments reduced partisan bias** by **14% on average**.
2077 -
2078 -----
2079 -
2080 -## **Findings**##
2081 -
2082 -1. **Primary Observations:**
2083 - - **Digital media significantly influences political opinions**, with younger audiences being the most impacted.
2084 - - **Multimedia content is more persuasive** than traditional text-based arguments.
2085 -
2086 -2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2087 - - **Social media platforms had stronger persuasive effects** than news websites.
2088 - - Participants who engaged in **online discussions retained more political knowledge**.
2089 -
2090 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2091 - - **Highly partisan users became more entrenched in their views**, even when exposed to opposing content.
2092 - - **Neutral or apolitical users were more likely to shift opinions**.
2093 -
2094 -----
2095 -
2096 -## **Critique and Observations**##
2097 -
2098 -1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2099 - - **Large-scale experimental design** allows for controlled comparisons.
2100 - - Covers **multiple digital platforms**, ensuring robust findings.
2101 -
2102 -2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2103 - - Limited to **short-term persuasion effects**, without long-term follow-up.
2104 - - Does not explore **the role of misinformation in political persuasion**.
2105 -
2106 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2107 - - Future studies should track **long-term opinion changes** beyond immediate reactions.
2108 - - Investigate **the role of digital media literacy in resisting persuasion**.
2109 -
2110 -----
2111 -
2112 -## **Relevance to Subproject**
2113 -- Provides insights into **how digital media shapes political discourse**.
2114 -- Highlights **which platforms and content types are most influential**.
2115 -- Supports **research on misinformation and online political engagement**.##
2116 -
2117 -----
2118 -
2119 -## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**##
2120 -
2121 -1. Study how **fact-checking influences digital persuasion effects**.
2122 -2. Investigate the **role of political influencers in shaping opinions**.
2123 -3. Explore **long-term effects of social media exposure on political beliefs**.
2124 -
2125 -----
2126 -
2127 -## **Summary of Research Study**
2128 -This study analyzes **how digital media influences political persuasion**, using **12 experimental studies**. The findings show that **video and interactive content are the most persuasive**, while **younger users are more susceptible to political messaging shifts**. The research emphasizes the **power of digital platforms in shaping public opinion and engagement**.##
2129 -
2130 -----
2131 -
2132 -## **📄 Download Full Study**
2133 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]##
2134 -{{/expand}}