0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

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

From version 99.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/04/16 01:50
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 120.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 06:04
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Parent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -Main.Studies.WebHome
1 +Main Categories.Science & Research.WebHome
Content
... ... @@ -1,99 +1,17 @@
1 +{{toc/}}
2 +
3 +
1 1  = Research at a Glance =
2 2  
3 3  
4 4  
5 - Welcome to the **Research at a Glance** repository. This section serves as a **centralized reference hub** for key academic studies related to various important Racial themes. Each study is categorized for easy navigation and presented in a **collapsible format** to maintain a clean layout. I wanted to make this for a couple of reasons. Number one is organization. There are a ton of useful studies out there that expose the truth, sometimes inadvertently. You'll notice that in this initial draft the summaries are often woke and reflect the bias of the AI writing them as well as the researchers politically correct conclusion in most cases. That's because I haven't gotten to going through and pointing out the reasons I put all of them in here.
8 + Welcome to the **Research at a Glance** repository. This section serves as a **centralized reference hub** for key academic studies related to various important Racial themes. Each study is categorized for easy navigation and presented in a **collapsible format** to maintain a clean layout. I wanted to make this for a couple of reasons. Number one is organization. There are a ton of useful studies out there that expose the truth, sometimes inadvertently. You'll notice that in this initial draft the summaries are often woke and reflect the bias of the AI writing them as well as the researchers politically correct conclusion in most cases. That's because I haven't gotten to going through and pointing out the reasons I put all of them in here.
6 6  
7 7  
8 8   There is often an underlying hypocrisy or double standard, saying the quiet part out loud, or conclusions that are so much of an antithesis to what the data shows that made me want to include it. At least, thats the idea for once its polished. I have about 150 more studies to upload, so it will be a few weeks before I get through it all. Until such time, feel free to search for them yourself and edit in what you find, or add your own studies. If you like you can do it manually, or if you'd rather go the route I did, just rename the study to its doi number and feed the study into an AI and tell them to summarize the study using the following format:
9 9  
10 -{{example}}
11 -~= Study: [Study Title] =
12 12  
13 -~{~{expand title="Study: [Study Title] (Click to Expand)" expanded="false"}}
14 -~*~*Source:~*~* *[Journal/Institution Name]*
15 -~*~*Date of Publication:~*~* *[Publication Date]*
16 -~*~*Author(s):~*~* *[Author(s) Name(s)]*
17 -~*~*Title:~*~* *"[Study Title]"*
18 -~*~*DOI:~*~* [DOI or Link]
19 -~*~*Subject Matter:~*~* *[Broad Research Area, e.g., Social Psychology, Public Policy, Behavioral Economics]* 
20 20  
21 -~-~--
22 -
23 -~#~# ~*~*Key Statistics~*~*
24 -~1. ~*~*General Observations:~*~*
25 - - [Statistical finding or observation]
26 - - [Statistical finding or observation]
27 -
28 -2. ~*~*Subgroup Analysis:~*~*
29 - - [Breakdown of findings by gender, race, or other subgroups]
30 -
31 -3. ~*~*Other Significant Data Points:~*~*
32 - - [Any additional findings or significant statistics]
33 -
34 -~-~--
35 -
36 -~#~# ~*~*Findings~*~*
37 -~1. ~*~*Primary Observations:~*~*
38 - - [High-level findings or trends in the study]
39 -
40 -2. ~*~*Subgroup Trends:~*~*
41 - - [Disparities or differences highlighted in the study]
42 -
43 -3. ~*~*Specific Case Analysis:~*~*
44 - - [Detailed explanation of any notable specific findings]
45 -
46 -~-~--
47 -
48 -~#~# ~*~*Critique and Observations~*~*
49 -~1. ~*~*Strengths of the Study:~*~*
50 - - [Examples: strong methodology, large dataset, etc.]
51 -
52 -2. ~*~*Limitations of the Study:~*~*
53 - - [Examples: data gaps, lack of upstream analysis, etc.]
54 -
55 -3. ~*~*Suggestions for Improvement:~*~*
56 - - [Ideas for further research or addressing limitations]
57 -
58 -~-~--
59 -
60 -~#~# ~*~*Relevance to Subproject~*~*
61 -- [Explanation of how this study contributes to your subproject goals.]
62 -- [Any key arguments or findings that support or challenge your views.]
63 -
64 -~-~--
65 -
66 -~#~# ~*~*Suggestions for Further Exploration~*~*
67 -~1. [Research questions or areas to investigate further.]
68 -2. [Potential studies or sources to complement this analysis.]
69 -
70 -~-~--
71 -
72 -~#~# ~*~*Summary of Research Study~*~*
73 -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]~*~*. 
74 -
75 -This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
76 -
77 -~-~--
78 -
79 -~#~# ~*~*📄 Download Full Study~*~*
80 -~{~{velocity}}
81 -#set($doi = "[Insert DOI Here]")
82 -#set($filename = "${doi}.pdf")
83 -#if($xwiki.exists("attach~:$filename"))
84 -~[~[Download Full Study>>attach~:$filename]]
85 -#else
86 -~{~{html}}<span style="color:red; font-weight:bold;">🚨 PDF Not Available 🚨</span>~{~{/html}}
87 -#end
88 -~{~{/velocity}}
89 -
90 -~{~{/expand}}
91 -
92 -
93 -{{/example}}
94 -
95 -
96 -
97 97  - Click on a **category** in the **Table of Contents** to browse studies related to that topic.
98 98  - Click on a **study title** to expand its details, including **key findings, critique, and relevance**.
99 99  - Use the **search function** (Ctrl + F or XWiki's built-in search) to quickly find specific topics or authors.
... ... @@ -101,16 +101,12 @@
101 101  - You'll also find a download link to the original full study in pdf form at the bottom of the collapsible block.
102 102  
103 103  
104 -{{toc/}}
105 105  
106 -
107 -
108 -
109 -
110 110  = Genetics =
111 111  
25 +{{expandable summary="
112 112  
113 -{{expandable summary="Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History"}}
27 +Study: Reconstructing Indian Population History"}}
114 114  **Source:** *Nature*
115 115  **Date of Publication:** *2009*
116 116  **Author(s):** *David Reich, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Alkes L. Price, Lalji Singh*
... ... @@ -174,22 +174,17 @@
174 174  
175 175  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
176 176  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature08365.pdf]]
177 -##
178 - ##
179 179  {{/expandable}}
180 180  {{/expandable}}
181 181  
182 -{{expandable summary="
94 +{{expandable summary="Study: The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"}}
95 +**Source:** *Nature*
96 +**Date of Publication:** *2016*
97 +**Author(s):** *David Reich, Swapan Mallick, Heng Li, Mark Lipson, and others*
98 +**Title:** *"The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"*
99 +**DOI:** [10.1038/nature18964](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18964)
100 +**Subject Matter:** *Human Genetic Diversity, Population History, Evolutionary Genomics*
183 183  
184 -
185 -Study: The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"}}
186 -**Source:** *Nature*
187 -**Date of Publication:** *2016*
188 -**Author(s):** *David Reich, Swapan Mallick, Heng Li, Mark Lipson, and others*
189 -**Title:** *"The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 Genomes from 142 Diverse Populations"*
190 -**DOI:** [10.1038/nature18964](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18964)
191 -**Subject Matter:** *Human Genetic Diversity, Population History, Evolutionary Genomics* 
192 -
193 193  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
194 194  1. **General Observations:**
195 195   - Analyzed **high-coverage genome sequences of 300 individuals from 142 populations**.
... ... @@ -246,14 +246,11 @@
246 246  
247 247  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
248 248  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1038_nature18964.pdf]]
249 -##
250 - ##
251 251  {{/expandable}}
252 252  {{/expandable}}
253 253  
254 -{{expandable summary="
161 +{{expandable summary="
255 255  
256 -
257 257  Study: Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies"}}
258 258  **Source:** *Nature Genetics*
259 259  **Date of Publication:** *2015*
... ... @@ -321,9 +321,8 @@
321 321  {{/expandable}}
322 322  {{/expandable}}
323 323  
324 -{{expandable summary="
230 +{{expandable summary="
325 325  
326 -
327 327  Study: Genetic Analysis of African Populations: Human Evolution and Complex Disease"}}
328 328  **Source:** *Nature Reviews Genetics*
329 329  **Date of Publication:** *2002*
... ... @@ -391,9 +391,8 @@
391 391  {{/expandable}}
392 392  {{/expandable}}
393 393  
394 -{{expandable summary="
299 +{{expandable summary="
395 395  
396 -
397 397  Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA"}}
398 398  **Source:** *bioRxiv Preprint*
399 399  **Date of Publication:** *September 15, 2024*
... ... @@ -462,10 +462,7 @@
462 462  {{/expandable}}
463 463  {{/expandable}}
464 464  
465 -{{expandable summary="
466 -
467 -
468 -Study: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"}}
369 +{{expandable summary="Study: The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age"}}
469 469  **Source:** *Twin Research and Human Genetics (Cambridge University Press)*
470 470  **Date of Publication:** *2013*
471 471  **Author(s):** *Thomas J. Bouchard Jr.*
... ... @@ -532,10 +532,7 @@
532 532  {{/expandable}}
533 533  {{/expandable}}
534 534  
535 -{{expandable summary="
536 -
537 -
538 -Study: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"}}
436 +{{expandable summary="Study: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications"}}
539 539  **Source:** *Medical Hypotheses (Elsevier)*
540 540  **Date of Publication:** *2010*
541 541  **Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley*
... ... @@ -749,6 +749,287 @@
749 749  
750 750  = Dating =
751 751  
650 +{{expandable summary="Study: Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace – Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"}}
651 +**Source:** *Social Forces*
652 +**Date of Publication:** *2016*
653 +**Author(s):** *Stephanie M. Curington, Kevin K. Anderson, and Jennifer Glass*
654 +**Title:** *"Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace: Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"*
655 +**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007](https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007)
656 +**Subject Matter:** *Race and Dating, Multiracial Identity, Online Behavior*
657 +
658 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
659 +1. **General Observations:**
660 + - Data drawn from **over 1 million messaging records** from an online dating site.
661 + - Focused on how **monoracial users** (especially Whites) interact with **multiracial daters**.
662 +
663 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
664 + - **Multiracial Black/White and Asian/White women** received **fewer responses from White men** than their monoracial counterparts.
665 + - White daters showed **stronger preferences for monoracial identities**, particularly **own-race pairings**.
666 +
667 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
668 + - **Multiracial men** fared worse than multiracial women across most pairings.
669 + - **Latina/White and Asian/White multiracial women** were **more positively received by Black and Hispanic men**.
670 +{{/expandable}}
671 +
672 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
673 +1. **Primary Observations:**
674 + - White users demonstrated a clear pattern of **in-group preference**, preferring other White users (monoracial or partially White) over more ambiguous multiracial identities.
675 + - Authors suggest this reflects **"boundary-maintaining behavior"** and **"latent racial bias"**.
676 +
677 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
678 + - **Multiracial women with partial minority backgrounds** were more acceptable to non-White men than White men.
679 + - Multiracial daters were **often treated as ambiguous or “less desirable”** in ways the authors frame as **resistance to racial integration**.
680 +
681 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
682 + - The most rejected group? **Black/White multiracial men**, especially by **White women**, which the authors do not frame as bias in the same way.
683 + - The study shows **asymmetrical concern** — when Whites select inwardly, it's seen as racial boundary policing; when minorities do it, it's not pathologized.
684 +{{/expandable}}
685 +
686 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
687 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
688 + - Large, real-world dataset gives useful behavioral insight into **racial preferences in dating**.
689 + - Raises legitimate questions about **how race, desire, and group identity intersect**.
690 +
691 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
692 + - Frames **normal in-group preference among Whites as "resistance to multiraciality"**, rather than neutral human patterning.
693 + - Ignores **similar or stronger in-group preference among Black and Asian users**, which could indicate *universal patterns*, not White exceptionalism.
694 + - Uses CRT framing to subtly **morally indict Whites for preferring Whites**, while exempting other groups.
695 +
696 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
697 + - Treat all in-group preference equally across racial groups — not just when Whites do it.
698 + - Disaggregate by age, education, and regional variation to control for confounds.
699 + - Consider whether **multiracial identity is ambiguous** by nature and if that ambiguity reduces clarity of signals in dating.
700 +{{/expandable}}
701 +
702 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
703 +- Provides a data point in the **ongoing academic effort to pathologize White selectiveness**, even in private, personal domains like dating.
704 +- Demonstrates how **racial preferences are only considered “problematic” when they preserve White group boundaries**.
705 +- Supports analysis of **how DEI-aligned narratives seek to dissolve in-group loyalty under the guise of openness and inclusion**.
706 +{{/expandable}}
707 +
708 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
709 +1. Investigate how **media and dating platforms reinforce multiracialism as normative** despite evidence of natural in-group selection.
710 +2. Study the **psychological effects of being told your preferences are morally wrong if you're White**.
711 +3. Explore how **multiracial identities are strategically framed** depending on political or cultural goals — exoticization, integration, or guilt projection.
712 +{{/expandable}}
713 +
714 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
715 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Curington et al. - Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Websit.pdf]]
716 +{{/expandable}}
717 +{{/expandable}}
718 +
719 +
720 +{{expandable summary="Study: The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"}}
721 +**Source:** *Porn Studies*
722 +**Date of Publication:** *2015*
723 +**Author(s):** *Noah Tsika*
724 +**Title:** *"The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"*
725 +**DOI:** [10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389](https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389)
726 +**Subject Matter:** *Pornography Studies, Race and Sexuality, Cultural Critique*
727 +
728 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
729 +1. **General Observations:**
730 + - This is a **qualitative content analysis** of gonzo pornography, particularly interracial porn involving Black men and White women.
731 + - The author reviews **select films, not a dataset**, using them to extrapolate broad cultural claims about race and sexuality.
732 +
733 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
734 + - Claims that **interracial porn “others” and dehumanizes Black men**, yet selectively **frames Black male sexual aggression as liberatory**.
735 + - The author accuses White male consumers of **fetishizing Black men** as both threats and tools for their own “colonial guilt.”
736 +
737 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
738 + - No empirical evidence, just interpretive readings of scenes and film dialogue.
739 + - Repeatedly criticizes **White directors and actors** as complicit in perpetuating “White supremacy through porn.”
740 +{{/expandable}}
741 +
742 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
743 +1. **Primary Observations:**
744 + - Argues that **gonzo interracial porn functions as racial propaganda**, reinforcing White guilt while commodifying Black masculinity.
745 + - Portrays White women as willing participants in a fantasy of racial domination that allegedly “liberates” Black men.
746 +
747 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
748 + - White male viewers are pathologized as both sexually repressed and voyeuristically complicit in anti-Black racism.
749 + - Black male performers are framed as both victims of racial commodification and **agents of resistance through hypersexuality**.
750 +
751 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
752 + - Cites scenes where Black male actors degrade or dominate White women as **“transgressive acts” that destabilize White power**, rather than examples of racial hostility or objectification.
753 + - The narrative treats **racially charged sexual violence as deconstructive**, only when it reverses traditional racial dynamics.
754 +{{/expandable}}
755 +
756 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
757 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
758 + - Useful in showcasing how **critical race theory invades even the most apolitical domains** (porn consumption) and turns them into race war battlegrounds.
759 + - Offers insight into how **White heterosexuality is recoded as colonialism** in activist academia.
760 +
761 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
762 + - **No statistical basis**, relies entirely on biased interpretive analysis of fringe media.
763 + - Presumes **intent and audience motivation** without surveys, viewership data, or cross-cultural comparison.
764 + - Treats Black aggression as empowering and White sexuality as inherently oppressive — a double standard.
765 +
766 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
767 + - Include comparative data on how different racial groups are portrayed in pornography across genres.
768 + - Analyze how **minority-run porn studios frame interracial themes** — not just White-directed media.
769 + - Address how racial fetishization **harms all groups**, not just Black men.
770 +{{/expandable}}
771 +
772 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
773 +- Exemplifies how **racialized sexual narratives are reinterpreted to indict White identity**, even in consumer entertainment.
774 +- Shows how **DEI and CRT frameworks are applied to pornographic material** to pathologize White maleness while sanctifying non-White hypermasculinity.
775 +- Highlights the **academic bias that treats transgressive content as empowering when it serves anti-White narratives**.
776 +{{/expandable}}
777 +
778 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
779 +1. Study how **interracial porn narratives differ when produced by non-White vs. White directors**.
780 +2. Examine **how racial power is portrayed in same-sex vs. heterosexual interracial porn**.
781 +3. Investigate whether the **fetishization of Black masculinity fuels unrealistic expectations and destructive stereotypes** for both Black and White men.
782 +{{/expandable}}
783 +
784 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
785 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Dinest - The White Man's Burden Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity.pdf]]
786 +{{/expandable}}
787 +{{/expandable}}
788 +
789 +
790 +{{expandable summary="Study: Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"}}
791 +**Source:** *Social Science Research*
792 +**Date of Publication:** *2009*
793 +**Author(s):** *Cynthia Feliciano, Belinda Robnett, Golnaz Komaie*
794 +**Title:** *"Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"*
795 +**DOI:** [10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004)
796 +**Subject Matter:** *Online Dating, Racial Preferences, CRT Framing of White Intimacy*
797 +
798 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
799 +1. **General Observations:**
800 + - Based on data from **Love@aol.com**, analyzing **over 6,000 profiles** from California.
801 + - The study investigated **racial preferences listed explicitly** in dating profiles.
802 +
803 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
804 + - **White women were least likely to express openness to interracial dating**, particularly with Black and Asian men.
805 + - **White men also showed exclusion**, but were more open than White women.
806 +
807 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
808 + - The authors labeled preference for one’s own race as **“racial exclusion”**.
809 + - Profiles by non-White users expressing same-race preferences were **not similarly problematized**.
810 +{{/expandable}}
811 +
812 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
813 +1. **Primary Observations:**
814 + - **White in-group preference was framed as discriminatory**, regardless of intent or context.
815 + - Dating preferences were interpreted as a **“reinforcement of racial hierarchies”**.
816 +
817 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
818 + - The study suggested **White women’s selectivity** stemmed from **cultural and structural advantages**, implying racial gatekeeping.
819 + - Did not critically examine **non-White preferences** for their own race.
820 +
821 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
822 + - Highlighted that **Latina and Asian women were more open to White men** than to men of their own ethnicity, which was not treated as exclusionary.
823 + - **No racial preference was criticized except when it protected White boundaries.**
824 +{{/expandable}}
825 +
826 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
827 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
828 + - Large dataset from real-world dating profiles.
829 + - Provides rare insight into **gendered patterns of racial preference**.
830 +
831 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
832 + - **Frames personal preference as political discrimination** when expressed by White users.
833 + - **Fails to control for cultural compatibility, attraction patterns, or religious values.**
834 + - **Double standard** in analysis — **non-White selectivity is ignored or justified.**
835 +
836 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
837 + - Should distinguish **racial animus from in-group preference**.
838 + - Include **psychological, aesthetic, and cultural compatibility data**.
839 + - Apply **equal critical lens to all racial groups**, not just Whites.
840 +{{/expandable}}
841 +
842 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
843 +- Reinforces how CRT-aligned research pathologizes **White in-group dating preferences**.
844 +- Supports the claim that **White intimacy boundaries are uniquely scrutinized** and politicized.
845 +- Demonstrates how even non-political behavior (e.g., dating) is racialized when it involves Whites.
846 +{{/expandable}}
847 +
848 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
849 +1. Study how **dating preferences vary by upbringing, media influence, and culture**, not just race.
850 +2. Analyze **racial preferences across all groups** with equal rigor and skepticism.
851 +3. Examine the **mental health impact of stigmatizing in-group preference** among Whites.
852 +{{/expandable}}
853 +
854 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
855 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.ssresearch.2009.04.004.pdf]]
856 +{{/expandable}}
857 +{{/expandable}}
858 +
859 +
860 +{{expandable summary="Study: Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World"}}
861 +**Source:** *Journal of European Psychoanalysis*
862 +**Date of Publication:** *2009*
863 +**Author(s):** *Kristen Fink* *Jewish*))
864 +**Title:** *"Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World: Sexual relationships between black men and white women as a cause of decline"*
865 +**DOI:** *Unavailable – Psychoanalytic essay publication*
866 +**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sexuality, Psychoanalysis, Cultural Demoralization*
867 +
868 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
869 +1. **General Observations:**
870 + - This is a **psychoanalytic essay**, not an empirical study.
871 + - Uses **Freudian and Lacanian theory** to explore symbolic meanings of interracial sex.
872 + - Frames **Black male–White female pairings** as psychologically disruptive to the White male ego and Western civilization.
873 +
874 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
875 + - Positions **Black men as symbolic rivals** to emasculated Western (White) men.
876 + - **White women’s interracial attraction** is framed as rebellion or rejection of Western order.
877 +
878 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
879 + - The essay proposes that **sexual representation in media** is demoralizing to White culture.
880 + - Uses **high theory language** to justify what is ultimately an anti-White cultural narrative.
881 +{{/expandable}}
882 +
883 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
884 +1. **Primary Observations:**
885 + - **Interracial sexual dynamics** are framed as central to **Western decline**.
886 + - **White masculinity is portrayed as passive, obsolete, or neurotic** in contrast to hypermasculinized Blackness.
887 +
888 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
889 + - Suggests White men internalize emasculation through exposure to interracial symbolism.
890 + - Sees **cultural loss of confidence** in White society as stemming from racial-sexual symbolism.
891 +
892 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
893 + - Analyzes media tropes (e.g., interracial porn, pop culture) through the lens of psychoanalytic guilt and transgression.
894 + - Never critiques the **ideological project of glorifying Blackness at the expense of White identity**.
895 +{{/expandable}}
896 +
897 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
898 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
899 + - Reveals how **elite academic disciplines like psychoanalysis** are used to mask anti-White narratives in esoteric jargon.
900 + - Serves as **ideological evidence** of demoralization tactics embedded in cultural theory.
901 +
902 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
903 + - No empirical data, surveys, or statistical analysis — purely speculative.
904 + - **Does not critique hypersexualization of Black men** or the dehumanizing aspects of the fetish.
905 + - Assumes **White masculinity must passively accept its symbolic erasure** as psychoanalytically “natural.”
906 +
907 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
908 + - Include **perspectives from White men and women** on how these portrayals affect their psychological well-being.
909 + - Disentangle psychoanalytic theory from **racial guilt ideology**.
910 + - Explore **mutual respect-based frameworks** for interracial dynamics rather than ones rooted in humiliation or power symbolism.
911 +{{/expandable}}
912 +
913 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
914 +- Illustrates how **race, sex, and culture are manipulated to undermine White self-perception**.
915 +- Demonstrates how **academic elites frame White decline as psychologically necessary or deserved**.
916 +- Provides ideological background for modern media trends that eroticize racial power imbalance.
917 +{{/expandable}}
918 +
919 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
920 +1. Analyze how psychoanalytic language is used to **justify racial inversion in cultural dominance**.
921 +2. Examine the **role of pornography in demoralization campaigns** targeting White men.
922 +3. Explore how elite journals create **ideological cover for overt anti-White sentiment**.
923 +{{/expandable}}
924 +
925 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
926 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.Fink_Black_Penis_Demoralization.pdf]]
927 +{{/expandable}}
928 +{{/expandable}}
929 +
930 +
752 752  {{expandable summary="Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"}}
753 753  **Source:** *JAMA Network Open*
754 754  **Date of Publication:** *2020*
... ... @@ -810,7 +810,7 @@
810 810  {{/expandable}}
811 811  
812 812  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
813 -
992 +
814 814  {{/expandable}}
815 815  {{/expandable}}
816 816  
... ... @@ -883,17 +883,14 @@
883 883  {{/expandable}}
884 884  {{/expandable}}
885 885  
886 -{{expandable summary="
1065 +{{expandable summary="Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"}}
1066 +**Source:** *Current Psychology*
1067 +**Date of Publication:** *2024*
1068 +**Author(s):** *Brandon Sparks, Alexandra M. Zidenberg, Mark E. Olver*
1069 +**Title:** *"One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"*
1070 +**DOI:** [10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z)
1071 +**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Mental Health, Social Isolation*
887 887  
888 -
889 -Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"}}
890 -**Source:** *Current Psychology*
891 -**Date of Publication:** *2024*
892 -**Author(s):** *Brandon Sparks, Alexandra M. Zidenberg, Mark E. Olver*
893 -**Title:** *"One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"*
894 -**DOI:** [10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z)
895 -**Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Mental Health, Social Isolation* 
896 -
897 897  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
898 898  1. **General Observations:**
899 899   - Study analyzed **67 self-identified incels** and **103 non-incel men**.
... ... @@ -951,11 +951,10 @@
951 951  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
952 952  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1007_s12144-023-04275-z.pdf]]
953 953  {{/expandable}}
1130 +{{/expandable}}
954 954  
955 955  = Crime and Substance Abuse =
956 956  
957 -{{/expandable}}
958 -
959 959  {{expandable summary="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"}}
960 960  **Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
961 961  **Date of Publication:** *2002*
... ... @@ -1023,17 +1023,14 @@
1023 1023  {{/expandable}}
1024 1024  {{/expandable}}
1025 1025  
1026 -{{expandable summary="
1201 +{{expandable summary="Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"}}
1202 +**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1203 +**Date of Publication:** *2003*
1204 +**Author(s):** *Timothy P. Johnson, Phillip J. Bowman*
1205 +**Title:** *"Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"*
1206 +**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120023394](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120023394)
1207 +**Subject Matter:** *Survey Methodology, Racial Disparities, Substance Use Research*
1027 1027  
1028 -
1029 -Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"}}
1030 -**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1031 -**Date of Publication:** *2003*
1032 -**Author(s):** *Timothy P. Johnson, Phillip J. Bowman*
1033 -**Title:** *"Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"*
1034 -**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120023394](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120023394)
1035 -**Subject Matter:** *Survey Methodology, Racial Disparities, Substance Use Research* 
1036 -
1037 1037  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1038 1038  1. **General Observations:**
1039 1039   - Study examined **how racial and cultural factors influence self-reported substance use data**.
... ... @@ -1160,11 +1160,9 @@
1160 1160  {{/expandable}}
1161 1161  {{/expandable}}
1162 1162  
1163 -{{expandable summary="Study: Associations Between Cannabis Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Young Adults"}}
1335 +{{expandable summary="
1164 1164  
1165 -{{/expandable}}
1166 -
1167 -{{expandable summary="Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"}}
1337 +Study: Is there a Dysgenic Secular Trend Towards Slowing Simple Reaction Time?"}}
1168 1168  **Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
1169 1169  **Date of Publication:** *2014*
1170 1170  **Author(s):** *Michael A. Woodley, Jan te Nijenhuis, Raegan Murphy*
... ... @@ -1229,71 +1229,142 @@
1229 1229  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1230 1230  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.intell.2014.05.012.pdf]]
1231 1231  {{/expandable}}
1402 +{{/expandable}}
1232 1232  
1233 1233  = Whiteness & White Guilt =
1234 1234  
1406 +{{expandable summary="Study: Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"}}
1407 +**Source:** *Psychological Science*
1408 +**Date of Publication:** *2014*
1409 +**Author(s):** *Caleb E. Lai, Anthony G. Greenwald, et al.*
1410 +**Title:** *"Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"*
1411 +**DOI:** [10.1177/0956797614535812](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535812)
1412 +**Subject Matter:** *Implicit Bias, Racial Psychology, Psychological Conditioning*
1413 +
1414 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1415 +1. **General Observations:**
1416 + - Tested **17 different interventions** across **6,321 participants**, all measured via IAT (Implicit Association Test).
1417 + - Focused exclusively on reducing **pro-White, anti-Black preferences** — no reciprocal testing on anti-White bias.
1418 +
1419 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1420 + - Educational and exposure-based interventions (e.g., multiculturalism, egalitarian messaging) failed to reduce bias significantly.
1421 + - Most effective short-term results came from **trauma-based or emotionally coercive interventions**.
1422 +
1423 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1424 + - The **"Black hero" intervention**, where participants imagined being violently attacked by a White man and rescued by a Black man, was among the most effective.
1425 + - Effects of even the most extreme interventions **dissipated within 24–72 hours**, with no long-term behavioral change.
1235 1235  {{/expandable}}
1236 1236  
1428 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1429 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1430 + - The interventions that produced the most dramatic IAT changes used **emotionally graphic narratives** depicting Whites as violent aggressors and Blacks as saviors.
1431 + - Merely showing positive Black images or promoting egalitarian values had minimal effect on implicit associations.
1432 +
1433 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1434 + - In the **"Black hero" condition**, participants were asked to imagine being physically beaten by a White person and then rescued by a Black person — an intentionally vivid and disturbing scenario.
1435 + - The **"Black victim" intervention** relied on emotionally shocking imagery of anti-Black violence (e.g., lynching) to induce guilt and disrupt positive associations with Whiteness.
1436 +
1437 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1438 + - None of the scenarios reversed the framing (e.g., Black aggressor/White victim), confirming the ideological goal was **to degrade White identity**, not merely reduce bias.
1439 + - The study was **cited by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)** to justify DEI-aligned policy recommendations.
1440 +{{/expandable}}
1441 +
1442 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1443 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1444 + - Large sample size and systematic comparison across diverse intervention types.
1445 + - Clearly shows that **implicit preference is resilient** and not easily changed by education or exposure alone.
1446 +
1447 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1448 + - The most “effective” methods **relied on emotional manipulation, not persuasion or evidence**.
1449 + - Assumes **natural in-group preference is pathological** when expressed by White subjects but makes no effort to test other groups.
1450 + - **Zero attention to pro-Black or anti-White bias** — only White attitudes are pathologized.
1451 +
1452 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1453 + - Test the **psychological harm** and ethical implications of using graphic racial trauma to coerce attitude change.
1454 + - Include interventions that **strengthen ingroup empathy** without demonizing other groups.
1455 + - Disaggregate bias by **class, region, and individual experience**, rather than racially reducing all bias to “Whiteness.”
1456 +{{/expandable}}
1457 +
1458 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1459 +- Provides direct evidence that **DEI-style implicit bias training** is based on emotionally abusive and **anti-White psychological framing**.
1460 +- Shows how **social science selectively targets Whites for attitude correction**, often using fictionalized racial trauma scenarios.
1461 +- Demonstrates that even extreme interventions **fail to achieve long-term change**, undermining the scientific justification for such policies.
1462 +{{/expandable}}
1463 +
1464 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1465 +1. Investigate **implicit bias training outcomes** in real-world institutional settings.
1466 +2. Study **the ethical limits of psychological reprogramming** in DEI policies.
1467 +3. Explore **natural ingroup preference across all races** using morally neutral frameworks.
1468 +{{/expandable}}
1469 +
1470 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1471 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:lai2014.pdf]]
1472 +{{/expandable}}
1473 +{{/expandable}}
1474 +
1475 +
1237 1237  {{expandable summary="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}}
1238 -**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1239 -**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1240 -**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1241 -**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1242 -**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1243 -**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sports, Higher Education, Institutional Racism*
1477 +**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
1478 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1479 +**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
1480 +**Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
1481 +**DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
1482 +**Subject Matter:** *Critical Race Theory, Sports Sociology, Anti-White Institutional Framing*
1244 1244  
1245 1245  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1246 1246  1. **General Observations:**
1247 - - Analyzed **47 college athlete narratives** to explore racial disparities in non-revenue sports.
1248 - - Found three interrelated themes: **racial segregation, racial innocence, and racial protection**.
1486 + - Based on **47 athlete interviews**, cherry-picked from non-revenue Division I sports.
1487 + - The study claims **segregation”**, but presents no evidence of actual exclusion or policy bias — just demographic imbalance.
1249 1249  
1250 1250  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1251 - - **Predominantly white sports programs** reinforce racial hierarchies in college athletics.
1252 - - **Recruitment policies favor white athletes** from affluent, suburban backgrounds.
1490 + - Attributes **White participation** in certain sports to "systemic racism", ignoring **self-selection, geography, and cultural affinity**.
1491 + - Claims White athletes are “protected” from race discussions — but never engages with **Black overrepresentation in revenue sports**.
1253 1253  
1254 1254  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1255 - - White athletes are **socialized to remain unaware of racial privilege** in their athletic careers.
1256 - - Media and institutional narratives protect white athletes from discussions on race and systemic inequities.
1494 + - White athletes are portrayed as **ignorant of their privilege**, a claim drawn entirely from CRT frameworks rather than behavior or outcome.
1495 + - **No empirical data** is offered on policy, scholarship distribution, or team selection criteria.
1257 1257  {{/expandable}}
1258 1258  
1259 1259  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1260 1260  1. **Primary Observations:**
1261 - - Colleges **actively recruit white athletes** from majority-white communities.
1262 - - Institutional policies **uphold whiteness** by failing to challenge racial biases in recruitment and team culture.
1500 + - Frames **normal demographic patterns** (e.g., majority-White rosters in tennis or rowing) as "institutional whiteness".
1501 + - **Ignores the structural dominance** of Black athletes in high-profile revenue sports like football and basketball.
1263 1263  
1264 1264  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1265 - - **White athletes show limited awareness** of their racial advantage in sports.
1266 - - **Black athletes are overrepresented** in revenue-generating sports but underrepresented in non-revenue teams.
1504 + - White athletes are criticized for **lacking racial awareness**, reinforcing the moral framing of **Whiteness as inherently problematic**.
1505 + - **Cultural preference, individual merit, and athletic subculture** are all excluded from consideration.
1267 1267  
1268 1268  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1269 - - Examines **how sports serve as a mechanism for maintaining racial privilege** in higher education.
1270 - - Discusses the **role of athletics in reinforcing systemic segregation and exclusion**.
1508 + - Argues that college sports **reinforce racial hierarchy** without ever showing how White athletes benefit more than Black athletes.
1509 + - Offers **no comparative analysis** of scholarships, graduation rates, or media portrayal by race.
1271 1271  {{/expandable}}
1272 1272  
1273 1273  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1274 1274  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1275 - - **Comprehensive qualitative analysis** of race in college sports.
1276 - - Examines **institutional conditions** that sustain racial disparities in athletics.
1514 + - Useful as a clear example of **how CRT ideologues weaponize demography** to frame White majority spaces as inherently suspect.
1515 + - Shows how **academic literature systematically avoids symmetrical analysis** when outcomes favor White participants.
1277 1277  
1278 1278  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1279 - - Focuses primarily on **Division I non-revenue sports**, limiting generalizability to other divisions.
1280 - - Lacks extensive **quantitative data on racial demographics** in college athletics.
1518 + - **Excludes revenue sports**, where Black athletes dominate by numbers, prestige, and compensation.
1519 + - **Fails to explain** how team composition emerges from voluntary participation, geography, or subcultural identity.
1520 + - Treats **racial imbalance as proof of racism**, bypassing merit, interest, or socioeconomic context.
1281 1281  
1282 1282  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1283 - - Future research should **compare recruitment policies across different sports and divisions**.
1284 - - Investigate **how athletic scholarships contribute to racial inequities in higher education**.
1523 + - Include **White athlete perspectives** without pre-framing them as racially naive or complicit.
1524 + - **Compare all sports**, including those where Black athletes thrive and lead.
1525 + - Remove CRT framing and **evaluate outcomes empirically**, not ideologically.
1285 1285  {{/expandable}}
1286 1286  
1287 1287  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1288 -- Provides evidence of **systemic racial biases** in college sports recruitment.
1289 -- Highlights **how institutional policies protect whiteness** in non-revenue athletics.
1290 -- Supports research on **diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in sports and education**.
1529 +- Demonstrates how **DEI-aligned research reframes benign patterns** as oppressive when White majorities are involved.
1530 +- Illustrates **anti-White academic framing** in environments where no institutional barrier exists.
1531 +- Provides a concrete example of how **CRT avoids acknowledging Black dominance in elite spaces** (revenue athletics).
1291 1291  {{/expandable}}
1292 1292  
1293 1293  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1294 -1. Investigate how **racial stereotypes influence college athlete recruitment**.
1295 -2. Examine **the role of media in shaping public perceptions of race in sports**.
1296 -3. Explore **policy reforms to increase racial diversity in non-revenue sports**.
1535 +1. Investigate **racial self-sorting and cultural affiliation** in athletic participation.
1536 +2. Compare **media framing of White-majority vs. Black-majority sports**.
1537 +3. Study **how CRT narratives distort athletic merit and demographic outcomes**.
1297 1297  {{/expandable}}
1298 1298  
1299 1299  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
... ... @@ -1301,66 +1301,70 @@
1301 1301  {{/expandable}}
1302 1302  {{/expandable}}
1303 1303  
1545 +
1304 1304  {{expandable summary="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
1305 -**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1306 -**Date of Publication:** *2016*
1307 -**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axta, M. Norman Oliver*
1547 +**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1548 +**Date of Publication:** *2016*
1549 +**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axt, M. Norman Oliver*
1308 1308  **Title:** *"Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs About Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites"*
1309 -**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1310 -**Subject Matter:** *Health Disparities, Racial Bias, Medical Treatment*
1551 +**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1552 +**Subject Matter:** *Medical Ethics, Race in Medicine, Implicit Bias*
1311 1311  
1312 1312  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1313 1313  1. **General Observations:**
1314 - - Study analyzed **racial disparities in pain perception and treatment recommendations**.
1315 - - Found that **white laypeople and medical students endorsed false beliefs about biological differences** between Black and white individuals.
1556 + - Analyzed responses from **222 white medical students and residents**.
1557 + - Investigated belief in **false biological differences between Black and White people**.
1558 + - Measured how those beliefs affected **pain ratings and treatment recommendations**.
1316 1316  
1317 1317  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1318 - - **50% of medical students surveyed endorsed at least one false belief about biological differences**.
1319 - - Participants who held these false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients pain levels**.
1561 + - **50% of participants endorsed at least one false belief** (e.g., Black people have thicker skin or less sensitive nerve endings).
1562 + - Those who endorsed false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients' pain**.
1320 1320  
1321 1321  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1322 - - **Black patients were less likely to receive appropriate pain treatment** compared to white patients.
1323 - - The study confirmed that **historical misconceptions about racial differences still persist in modern medicine**.
1565 + - Bias was **most prominent among first-year students**, diminishing slightly with experience.
1566 + - Study used **hypothetical case vignettes**, not real patient data.
1324 1324  {{/expandable}}
1325 1325  
1326 1326  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1327 1327  1. **Primary Observations:**
1328 - - False beliefs about biological racial differences **correlate with racial disparities in pain treatment**.
1329 - - Medical students and residents who endorsed these beliefs **showed greater racial bias in treatment recommendations**.
1571 + - False biological beliefs were **strongly correlated with racial disparity** in pain assessment.
1572 + - Endorsement of such beliefs led to **less appropriate treatment for Black patients** in fictional cases.
1330 1330  
1331 1331  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1332 - - Physicians who **did not endorse these beliefs** showed **no racial bias** in treatment recommendations.
1333 - - Bias was **strongest among first-year medical students** and decreased slightly in later years of training.
1575 + - Medical students with **no false beliefs showed no treatment bias**.
1576 + - No evidence was presented of **active discrimination** — bias appeared linked to **misinformation, not malice**.
1334 1334  
1335 1335  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1336 - - Study participants **underestimated Black patients' pain and recommended less effective pain treatments**.
1337 - - The study suggests that **racial disparities in medical care stem, in part, from these enduring false beliefs**.
1579 + - Fictional vignettes demonstrated that **misinformation about biology**, not systemic malice, led to unequal care.
1580 + - The study **did not show bias against White patients**, nor explore disparities affecting them.
1338 1338  {{/expandable}}
1339 1339  
1340 1340  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1341 1341  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1342 - - **First empirical study to connect false racial beliefs with medical decision-making**.
1343 - - Utilizes a **large sample of medical students and residents** from diverse institutions.
1585 + - Provides valuable insight into **how medical myths can affect judgment**.
1586 + - Demonstrates the importance of **clinical education and evidence-based practice**.
1344 1344  
1345 1345  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1346 - - The study focuses on **Black vs. white disparities**, leaving other racial/ethnic groups unexplored.
1347 - - Participants' responses were based on **hypothetical medical cases, not real-world treatment decisions**.
1589 + - Fails to examine **bias affecting White patients**, including under-treatment of opioid dependence or mental health.
1590 + - Only focuses on one direction of disparity, treating **White patients as a control** rather than a population worthy of study.
1591 + - **Overemphasizes "racial bias"** narrative despite the findings being more about **ignorance than intent**.
1348 1348  
1349 1349  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1350 - - Future research should examine **how these biases manifest in real clinical settings**.
1351 - - Investigate **whether medical training can correct these biases over time**.
1594 + - Include **comparison groups for all races**, not just a binary Black–White framework.
1595 + - Investigate **systemic neglect of poor rural White populations**, especially in Appalachia and the Midwest.
1596 + - Clarify the **distinction between false belief and racial animus**, which the study conflates under CRT framing.
1352 1352  {{/expandable}}
1353 1353  
1354 1354  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1355 -- Highlights **racial disparities in healthcare**, specifically in pain assessment and treatment.
1356 -- Supports **research on implicit bias and its impact on medical outcomes**.
1357 -- Provides evidence for **the need to address racial bias in medical education**.
1600 +- Shows how **DEI-aligned narratives exploit limited findings** to vilify White professionals.
1601 +- Provides an example of a **legitimate medical education issue being repackaged as “racial bias.”**
1602 +- Highlights the **lack of reciprocal scrutiny** of how minorities may receive **preferential narrative framing** or **programmatic support**.
1358 1358  {{/expandable}}
1359 1359  
1360 1360  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1361 -1. Investigate **interventions to reduce racial bias in medical decision-making**.
1362 -2. Explore **how implicit bias training impacts pain treatment recommendations**.
1363 -3. Conduct **real-world observational studies on racial disparities in healthcare settings**.
1606 +1. Study whether **DEI training reduces false beliefs** or simply **induces White guilt**.
1607 +2. Investigate **biases against White rural patients**, especially regarding **opioid or pain management stigma**.
1608 +3. Conduct **clinical outcome studies**, not self-reported vignettes, to test **real-world disparities**.
1364 1364  {{/expandable}}
1365 1365  
1366 1366  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
... ... @@ -1368,13 +1368,14 @@
1368 1368  {{/expandable}}
1369 1369  {{/expandable}}
1370 1370  
1616 +
1371 1371  {{expandable summary="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}}
1372 -**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1373 -**Date of Publication:** *2015*
1374 -**Author(s):** *Anne Case, Angus Deaton*
1375 -**Title:** *"Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st Century"*
1376 -**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1518393112](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518393112)
1377 -**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Mortality, Socioeconomic Factors* 
1618 +**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1619 +**Date of Publication:** *2015*
1620 +**Author(s):** *Anne Case, Angus Deaton*
1621 +**Title:** *"Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st Century"*
1622 +**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1518393112](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518393112)
1623 +**Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Mortality, Socioeconomic Factors*
1378 1378  
1379 1379  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1380 1380  1. **General Observations:**
... ... @@ -1436,75 +1436,77 @@
1436 1436  {{/expandable}}
1437 1437  
1438 1438  {{expandable summary="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"}}
1439 -**Source:** *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies*
1440 -**Date of Publication:** *2023*
1441 -**Author(s):** *Maurice Crul, Frans Lelie, Elif Keskiner, Laure Michon, Ismintha Waldring*
1442 -**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1443 -**DOI:** [10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548](https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548)
1444 -**Subject Matter:** *Urban Sociology, Migration Studies, Integration*
1685 +**Source:** *Urban Studies*
1686 +**Date of Publication:** *2023*
1687 +**Author(s):** *Nina Glick Schiller, Jens Schneider, Ayşe Çağlar*
1688 +**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1689 +**DOI:** [10.1177/00420980231170057](https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231170057)
1690 +**Subject Matter:** *Urban Diversity, Migration, Identity Politics*
1445 1445  
1446 1446  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1447 1447  1. **General Observations:**
1448 - - Study examines the role of **people without migration background** in majority-minority cities.
1449 - - Analyzes **over 3,000 survey responses and 150 in-depth interviews** from six North-Western European cities.
1694 + - Based on interviews with **White European residents** in three major European cities.
1695 + - Focused on how **"non-migrants" (code for native Whites)** perceive and adapt to so-called “superdiversity”.
1450 1450  
1451 1451  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1452 - - Explores differences in **integration, social interactions, and perceptions of diversity**.
1453 - - Studies how **class, education, and neighborhood composition** affect adaptation to urban diversity.
1698 + - Interviewees were **overwhelmingly framed as obstacles** to multicultural harmony.
1699 + - Researchers **pathologized attachment to local culture or ethnic identity** as “resistance to change.
1454 1454  
1455 1455  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1456 - - The study introduces the **Becoming a Minority (BaM) project**, a large-scale investigation of urban demographic shifts.
1457 - - **People without migration background perceive diversity differently**, with some embracing and others resisting change.
1702 + - Claims that even positive civic participation by Whites may **“reinforce white privilege.”**
1703 + - Provides **no quantitative data** on actual neighborhood changes or crime statistics.
1458 1458  {{/expandable}}
1459 1459  
1460 1460  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1461 1461  1. **Primary Observations:**
1462 - - The study **challenges traditional integration theories**, arguing that non-migrant groups also undergo adaptation processes.
1463 - - Some residents **struggle with demographic changes**, while others see diversity as an asset.
1708 + - Argues that White natives, by simply existing and having a historical presence, **“shape urban inequality.”**
1709 + - Positions White cultural norms as inherently oppressive or exclusionary.
1464 1464  
1465 1465  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1466 - - Young, educated individuals in urban areas **are more open to cultural diversity**.
1467 - - Older and less mobile residents **report feelings of displacement and social isolation**.
1712 + - Critiques White residents for seeking **cultural familiarity or demographic continuity.**
1713 + - Presents **White neighborhood cohesion** as a form of invisible boundary-making.
1468 1468  
1469 1469  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1470 - - Examines how **people without migration background navigate majority-minority settings** in cities like Amsterdam and Vienna.
1471 - - Analyzes **whether former ethnic majority groups now perceive themselves as minorities**.
1716 + - Interviews frame **normal concerns about safety, schooling, or housing** as coded racism.
1717 + - Treats **multicultural disruption** as inherently positive, and **resistance as bigotry.**
1472 1472  {{/expandable}}
1473 1473  
1474 1474  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1475 1475  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1476 - - **Innovative approach** by examining the impact of migration on native populations.
1477 - - Uses **both qualitative and quantitative data** for robust analysis.
1722 + - Reveals how **social scientists increasingly treat Whiteness itself as a problem.**
1723 + - Offers an **unintentional case study in academic anti-White framing.**
1478 1478  
1479 1479  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1480 - - Limited to **Western European urban settings**, missing perspectives from other global regions.
1481 - - Does not fully explore **policy interventions for fostering social cohesion**.
1726 + - **Completely ignores migrant-driven displacement** of working-class Whites.
1727 + - Makes **no attempt to understand White residents sympathetically**, only as barriers.
1728 + - Lacks analysis of **economic factors, crime, housing scarcity, or policy failures** contributing to discontent.
1482 1482  
1483 1483  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1484 - - Expand research to **other geographical contexts** to understand migration effects globally.
1485 - - Investigate **long-term trends in urban adaptation and community building**.
1731 + - Include **White perspectives without presuming guilt or fragility.**
1732 + - Disaggregate “White” by **class, locality, or experience** — not treat as a monolith.
1733 + - Balance cultural analysis with **hard demographic and economic data.**
1486 1486  {{/expandable}}
1487 1487  
1488 1488  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1489 -- Provides a **new perspective on urban integration**, shifting focus from migrants to native-born populations.
1490 -- Highlights the **role of social and economic power in shaping urban diversity outcomes**.
1491 -- Challenges existing **assimilation theories by showing bidirectional adaptation in diverse cities**.
1737 +- Demonstrates how **academic literature increasingly stigmatizes White presence** in urban life.
1738 +- Shows how **“diversity” is defined as the absence or silence of native populations.**
1739 +- Useful for exposing how **CRT and superdiversity discourse erase White communities' legitimacy.**
1492 1492  {{/expandable}}
1493 1493  
1494 1494  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1495 -1. Study how **local policies shape attitudes toward urban diversity**.
1496 -2. Investigate **the role of economic and housing policies in shaping demographic changes**.
1497 -3. Explore **how social networks influence perceptions of migration and diversity**.
1743 +1. Study the **psychological impact of demographic displacement** on native European populations.
1744 +2. Examine **rising crime and social fragmentation** in “superdiverse” zones.
1745 +3. Analyze how **housing, schooling, and local economies** are impacted by mass migration.
1498 1498  {{/expandable}}
1499 1499  
1500 1500  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1501 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]
1749 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_00420980231170057.pdf]]
1502 1502  {{/expandable}}
1751 +{{/expandable}}
1503 1503  
1753 +
1504 1504  = Media =
1505 1505  
1506 -{{/expandable}}
1507 -
1508 1508  {{expandable summary="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic"}}
1509 1509  **Source:** *Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication*
1510 1510  **Date of Publication:** *2021*
... ... @@ -1703,6 +1703,239 @@
1703 1703  
1704 1704  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1705 1705  [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]
1706 -##~{~{/expand}}##
1707 1707  {{/expandable}}
1708 1708  {{/expandable}}
1956 +
1957 +{{expandable summary="Study: White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years"}}
1958 +Source: Journal of Advertising Research
1959 +Date of Publication: 2022
1960 +Author(s): Peter M. Lenk, Eric T. Bradlow, Randolph E. Bucklin, Sungeun (Clara) Kim
1961 +Title: "White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years: A Meta-Analysis"
1962 +DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2022-028
1963 +Subject Matter: Advertising Trends, Racial Representation, Cultural Shifts
1964 +
1965 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1966 +
1967 +**General Observations:**
1968 +
1969 +Meta-analysis of 74 studies conducted between 1955 and 2020 on racial representation in advertising.
1970 +
1971 +Sample included mostly White U.S. participants, with consistent tracking of their preferences.
1972 +
1973 +**Subgroup Analysis:**
1974 +
1975 +Found a steady increase in positive responses toward Black models/actors in ads by White viewers.
1976 +
1977 +Recent decades show equal or greater preference for Black faces compared to White ones.
1978 +
1979 +**Other Significant Data Points:**
1980 +
1981 +Study frames this shift as a positive move toward diversity, ignoring implications for displaced White cultural representation.
1982 +
1983 +No equivalent data was collected on Black or Hispanic attitudes toward White representation.
1984 +{{/expandable}}
1985 +
1986 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1987 +
1988 +**Primary Observations:**
1989 +
1990 +White Americans have become increasingly receptive or favorable toward Black figures in advertising, even over timeframes of widespread cultural change.
1991 +
1992 +These preferences held across product types, media formats, and ad genres.
1993 +
1994 +**Subgroup Trends:**
1995 +
1996 +Studies from the 1960s–1980s showed preference for in-group racial representation, which has dropped sharply for Whites in recent decades.
1997 +
1998 +The largest positive attitudinal shift occurred between 1995–2020, coinciding with major DEI and cultural programming trends.
1999 +
2000 +**Specific Case Analysis:**
2001 +
2002 +The authors position this as “progress,” but offer no critical reflection on the effects of displacing White imagery from national advertising narratives.
2003 +
2004 +Completely omits consumer preference studies in countries outside the U.S., especially in more homogeneous nations.
2005 +{{/expandable}}
2006 +
2007 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2008 +
2009 +**Strengths of the Study:**
2010 +
2011 +Large-scale dataset across decades provides a clear empirical view of long-term trends.
2012 +
2013 +Useful as a benchmark of how White American preferences have evolved under sociocultural pressure.
2014 +
2015 +**Limitations of the Study:**
2016 +
2017 +Fails to ask whether increasing diversity is consumer-driven or culturally imposed.
2018 +
2019 +Ignores the potential alienation or displacement of White cultural identity from mainstream advertising.
2020 +
2021 +Assumes “diverse equals better” without testing economic or emotional impact of those shifts.
2022 +
2023 +**Suggestions for Improvement:**
2024 +
2025 +Include non-White viewer reactions to all-White or traditional American imagery for balance.
2026 +
2027 +Test whether consumers notice racial proportions or experience fatigue from overcorrection.
2028 +
2029 +Explore regional or class-based variance among White viewers, not just aggregate averages.
2030 +{{/expandable}}
2031 +
2032 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2033 +
2034 +Demonstrates how White cultural imagery has been steadily replaced or downplayed in the public sphere.
2035 +
2036 +Useful for showing how marketing professionals and researchers frame White displacement as “progress.”
2037 +
2038 +Empirically supports the decline of White in-group preference — possibly due to reeducation, guilt framing, or media saturation.
2039 +{{/expandable}}
2040 +
2041 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2042 +
2043 +Study how overrepresentation of minorities in advertising compares to actual demographics.
2044 +
2045 +Examine whether consumers feel represented or alienated by identity-based marketing.
2046 +
2047 +Investigate the psychological and cultural impact of long-term demographic displacement in national advertising.
2048 +{{/expandable}}
2049 +
2050 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2051 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.2501_JAR-2022-028.pdf]]
2052 +{{/expandable}}
2053 +{{/expandable}}
2054 +
2055 +{{expandable summary="Study: Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"}}
2056 +**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2057 +**Date of Publication:** *2020*
2058 +**Author(s):** *John A. Banas, Lauren L. Miller, David A. Braddock, Sun Kyong Lee*
2059 +**Title:** *"Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice"*
2060 +**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqz032](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz032)
2061 +**Subject Matter:** *Media Psychology, Prejudice Reduction, Intergroup Relations*
2062 +
2063 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2064 +1. **General Observations:**
2065 + - Aggregated **71 studies involving 27,000+ participants**.
2066 + - Focused on how **media portrayals of out-groups (primarily minorities)** affect attitudes among dominant in-groups (i.e., Whites).
2067 +
2068 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
2069 + - **Fictional entertainment** had stronger effects than news.
2070 + - **Positive portrayals of minorities** correlated with significant reductions in “prejudice”.
2071 +
2072 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
2073 + - Effects were stronger when minority characters were portrayed as **warm, competent, and morally relatable**.
2074 + - Contact was more effective when it mimicked **face-to-face friendship narratives**.
2075 +{{/expandable}}
2076 +
2077 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2078 +1. **Primary Observations:**
2079 + - Media is a **powerful tool for shaping racial attitudes**, capable of reducing “prejudice” without real-world contact.
2080 + - **Repeated exposure** to positive portrayals of minorities led to increased acceptance and reduced negative bias.
2081 +
2082 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2083 + - **White participants** were the primary targets of reconditioning.
2084 + - Minority participants were not studied in terms of **prejudice against Whites**.
2085 +
2086 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2087 + - “Parasocial” relationships with minority characters (TV/movie exposure) had comparable psychological effects to actual friendships.
2088 + - Media framing functioned as a **top-down mechanism for social engineering**, not just passive reflection of society.
2089 +{{/expandable}}
2090 +
2091 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2092 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2093 + - High-quality quantitative meta-analysis with clear design and robust statistical handling.
2094 + - Acknowledges **media’s ability to alter long-held social beliefs** without physical contact.
2095 +
2096 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2097 + - Only defines “prejudice” as **negative attitudes from Whites toward minorities** — no exploration of anti-White media narratives or bias.
2098 + - Ignores the effects of **overexposure to minority portrayals** on cultural alienation or backlash.
2099 + - Assumes **assimilation into DEI norms is inherently positive**, and any reluctance to accept them is “prejudice”.
2100 +
2101 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2102 + - Study reciprocal dynamics — how **minority media portrayals impact attitudes toward Whites**.
2103 + - Investigate whether constant valorization of minorities leads to **resentment, guilt, or political disengagement** among White viewers.
2104 + - Analyze **media saturation effects**, especially in multicultural propaganda and corporate DEI messaging.
2105 +{{/expandable}}
2106 +
2107 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2108 +- Provides **direct evidence** that media is being used to **reshape racial attitudes** through emotional, parasocial contact.
2109 +- Reinforces concern that **“tolerance” is engineered via asymmetric emotional exposure**, not organic consensus.
2110 +- Useful for documenting how **Whiteness is often treated as a bias to be corrected**, not a culture to be respected.
2111 +{{/expandable}}
2112 +
2113 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2114 +1. Investigate **reverse parasocial effects** — how negative portrayals of White men affect self-perception and mental health.
2115 +2. Study how **mass entertainment normalizes demographic shifts** and silences native concerns.
2116 +3. Compare effects of **Western vs. non-Western media systems** in promoting diversity narratives.
2117 +{{/expandable}}
2118 +
2119 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2120 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf]]
2121 +{{/expandable}}
2122 +{{/expandable}}
2123 +
2124 +
2125 +{{expandable summary="Study: Cultural Voyeurism – A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"}}
2126 +**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
2127 +**Date of Publication:** *2018*
2128 +**Author(s):** *Osei Appiah*
2129 +**Title:** *"Cultural Voyeurism: A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"*
2130 +**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
2131 +**Subject Matter:** *Intergroup contact, racial stereotypes, media, identity formation*
2132 +
2133 +{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
2134 +1. **No empirical dataset** — this is a theoretical framework paper, not a quantitative study.
2135 +2. **Heavily cites prior empirical work**, including:
2136 + - Czopp & Monteith (2006) on “complimentary stereotypes”
2137 + - Armstrong et al. (1992), Entman & Rojecki (2000) on media distortion of race
2138 + - Pettigrew et al. (2011) on intergroup contact
2139 +
2140 +3. **Statistical implications:** Repeatedly emphasizes the role of media in shaping racial beliefs when direct interracial contact is absent.
2141 +{{/expandable}}
2142 +
2143 +{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
2144 +1. **Primary Observations:**
2145 + - Defines *cultural voyeurism* as the process of using media to observe and learn about other racial/ethnic groups.
2146 + - Claims it can both reinforce stereotypes and reduce prejudice depending on context.
2147 + - Suggests that Whites’ fascination with Black culture (e.g., hip-hop, athleticism) is a driver of empathy and improved race relations.
2148 +
2149 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2150 + - White youth are singled out as cultural voyeurs increasingly emulating Black identity for social cachet (“coolness”).
2151 + - Positive media portrayals of Blacks (e.g., in entertainment) said to reduce racial bias.
2152 +
2153 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2154 + - No case study provided, but mentions “Duck Dynasty” and “hip-hop culture” as stereotyped White/Black identity constructs respectively.
2155 +{{/expandable}}
2156 +
2157 +{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
2158 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2159 + - Recognizes media’s dual role in shaping intergroup perception.
2160 + - Accurately captures the obsession with racial “coolness” as a social phenomenon.
2161 +
2162 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2163 + - Frames White identification with Black culture as inherently progressive, ignoring issues of **anti-White displacement**.
2164 + - Treats *positive stereotypes of minorities* (e.g., athleticism, musicality) as meaningful substitutes for structural reality.
2165 + - Lacks any meaningful inquiry into *reverse cultural voyeurism* (i.e., non-Whites voyeuristically consuming and appropriating White identity or values).
2166 +
2167 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2168 + - Should confront whether “cultural voyeurism” ultimately erodes group boundaries and majority cultural integrity.
2169 + - Needs empirical validation of claims.
2170 + - Avoids uncomfortable realities about how White identity is increasingly stigmatized in media — which undermines genuine empathy or parity.
2171 +{{/expandable}}
2172 +
2173 +{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
2174 +- Helps explain how **media conditioning** primes young Whites to *admire, emulate, and eventually submit* to Black cultural dominance.
2175 +- Directly supports the narrative that **pro-White identity is systematically delegitimized**, while pro-Black identity is commodified and glamorized — then sold back to White youth.
2176 +- Useful in chapters/sections covering cultural appropriation *in reverse* — not by Whites, but **of Whiteness** by outsiders for critique and exploitation.
2177 +{{/expandable}}
2178 +
2179 +{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
2180 +1. Are there longitudinal studies showing cultural voyeurism weakening in-group preference among Whites?
2181 +2. Does this phenomenon correspond to decreased fertility, civic participation, or political alignment with group interest?
2182 +3. How do non-Western societies handle voyeuristic consumption of majority culture — do they permit or punish it?
2183 +{{/expandable}}
2184 +
2185 +{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
2186 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:Cultural Voyeurism A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Intera.pdf]]
2187 +{{/expandable}}
2188 +{{/expandable}}
2189 +
Banas et al. - 2020 - Meta-Analysis on Mediated Contact and Prejudice.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +472.9 KB
Content
lai2014.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +15.4 MB
Content
lenk-et-al-white-americans-preference-for-black-people-in-advertising-has-increased-in-the-past-66-years-a-meta-analysis.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.AdminAngriff
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2.1 MB
Content