0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

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

From version 111.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 03:15
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 112.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 03:36
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -1193,71 +1193,69 @@
1193 1193  
1194 1194  
1195 1195  {{expandable summary="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
1196 -**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1197 -**Date of Publication:** *2016*
1198 -**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axta, M. Norman Oliver*
1196 +**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
1197 +**Date of Publication:** *2016*
1198 +**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axt, M. Norman Oliver*
1199 1199  **Title:** *"Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs About Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites"*
1200 -**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1201 -**Subject Matter:** *Health Disparities, Racial Bias, Medical Treatment*
1200 +**DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
1201 +**Subject Matter:** *Medical Ethics, Race in Medicine, Implicit Bias*
1202 1202  
1203 1203  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1204 1204  1. **General Observations:**
1205 - - Study analyzed **racial disparities in pain perception and treatment recommendations**.
1206 - - Found that **white laypeople and medical students endorsed false beliefs about biological differences** between Black and white individuals.
1205 + - Analyzed responses from **222 white medical students and residents**.
1206 + - Investigated belief in **false biological differences between Black and White people**.
1207 + - Measured how those beliefs affected **pain ratings and treatment recommendations**.
1207 1207  
1208 1208  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1209 - - **50% of medical students surveyed endorsed at least one false belief about biological differences**.
1210 - - Participants who held these false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients pain levels**.
1210 + - **50% of participants endorsed at least one false belief** (e.g., Black people have thicker skin or less sensitive nerve endings).
1211 + - Those who endorsed false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients' pain**.
1211 1211  
1212 1212  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1213 - - **Black patients were less likely to receive appropriate pain treatment** compared to white patients.
1214 - - The study confirmed that **historical misconceptions about racial differences still persist in modern medicine**.
1214 + - Bias was **most prominent among first-year students**, diminishing slightly with experience.
1215 + - Study used **hypothetical case vignettes**, not real patient data.
1215 1215  {{/expandable}}
1216 1216  
1217 1217  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1218 1218  1. **Primary Observations:**
1219 - - False beliefs about biological racial differences **correlate with racial disparities in pain treatment**.
1220 - - Medical students and residents who endorsed these beliefs **showed greater racial bias in treatment recommendations**.
1220 + - False biological beliefs were **strongly correlated with racial disparity** in pain assessment.
1221 + - Endorsement of such beliefs led to **less appropriate treatment for Black patients** in fictional cases.
1221 1221  
1222 1222  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1223 - - Physicians who **did not endorse these beliefs** showed **no racial bias** in treatment recommendations.
1224 - - Bias was **strongest among first-year medical students** and decreased slightly in later years of training.
1224 + - Medical students with **no false beliefs showed no treatment bias**.
1225 + - No evidence was presented of **active discrimination** — bias appeared linked to **misinformation, not malice**.
1225 1225  
1226 1226  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1227 - - Study participants **underestimated Black patients' pain and recommended less effective pain treatments**.
1228 - - The study suggests that **racial disparities in medical care stem, in part, from these enduring false beliefs**.
1228 + - Fictional vignettes demonstrated that **misinformation about biology**, not systemic malice, led to unequal care.
1229 + - The study **did not show bias against White patients**, nor explore disparities affecting them.
1229 1229  {{/expandable}}
1230 1230  
1231 1231  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1232 1232  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1233 - - **First empirical study to connect false racial beliefs with medical decision-making**.
1234 - - Utilizes a **large sample of medical students and residents** from diverse institutions.
1234 + - Provides valuable insight into **how medical myths can affect judgment**.
1235 + - Demonstrates the importance of **clinical education and evidence-based practice**.
1235 1235  
1236 1236  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1237 - - The study focuses on **Black vs. white disparities**, leaving other racial/ethnic groups unexplored.
1238 - - Participants' responses were based on **hypothetical medical cases, not real-world treatment decisions**.
1238 + - Fails to examine **bias affecting White patients**, including under-treatment of opioid dependence or mental health.
1239 + - Only focuses on one direction of disparity, treating **White patients as a control** rather than a population worthy of study.
1240 + - **Overemphasizes "racial bias"** narrative despite the findings being more about **ignorance than intent**.
1239 1239  
1240 1240  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1241 - - Future research should examine **how these biases manifest in real clinical settings**.
1242 - - Investigate **whether medical training can correct these biases over time**.
1243 + - Include **comparison groups for all races**, not just a binary Black–White framework.
1244 + - Investigate **systemic neglect of poor rural White populations**, especially in Appalachia and the Midwest.
1245 + - Clarify the **distinction between false belief and racial animus**, which the study conflates under CRT framing.
1243 1243  {{/expandable}}
1244 1244  
1245 1245  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1246 -- Highlights **racial disparities in healthcare**, specifically in pain assessment and treatment.
1247 -- Supports **research on implicit bias and its impact on medical outcomes**.
1248 -- Provides evidence for **the need to address racial bias in medical education**.
1249 +- Shows how **DEI-aligned narratives exploit limited findings** to vilify White professionals.
1250 +- Provides an example of a **legitimate medical education issue being repackaged as “racial bias.”**
1251 +- Highlights the **lack of reciprocal scrutiny** of how minorities may receive **preferential narrative framing** or **programmatic support**.
1249 1249  {{/expandable}}
1250 1250  
1251 1251  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1252 -1. Investigate **interventions to reduce racial bias in medical decision-making**.
1253 -2. Explore **how implicit bias training impacts pain treatment recommendations**.
1254 -3. Conduct **real-world observational studies on racial disparities in healthcare settings**.
1255 -{{/expandable}}
1255 +1. Study whether **DEI training reduces false beliefs** or simply **induces White guilt**.
1256 +2. Investigate **biases against White rural patients**, especially regarding **opioid or pain management stigma**.
1257 +3. Conduct **clinical outcome studies**, not self-reported vignettes, to test **real-world disparities**.
1256 1256  
1257 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1258 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1073_pnas.1516047113.pdf]]
1259 -{{/expandable}}
1260 -{{/expandable}}
1261 1261  
1262 1262  {{expandable summary="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}}
1263 1263  **Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
... ... @@ -1327,72 +1327,75 @@
1327 1327  {{/expandable}}
1328 1328  
1329 1329  {{expandable summary="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"}}
1330 -**Source:** *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies*
1331 -**Date of Publication:** *2023*
1332 -**Author(s):** *Maurice Crul, Frans Lelie, Elif Keskiner, Laure Michon, Ismintha Waldring*
1333 -**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1334 -**DOI:** [10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548](https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2182548)
1335 -**Subject Matter:** *Urban Sociology, Migration Studies, Integration*
1328 +**Source:** *Urban Studies*
1329 +**Date of Publication:** *2023*
1330 +**Author(s):** *Nina Glick Schiller, Jens Schneider, Ayşe Çağlar*
1331 +**Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
1332 +**DOI:** [10.1177/00420980231170057](https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231170057)
1333 +**Subject Matter:** *Urban Diversity, Migration, Identity Politics*
1336 1336  
1337 1337  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1338 1338  1. **General Observations:**
1339 - - Study examines the role of **people without migration background** in majority-minority cities.
1340 - - Analyzes **over 3,000 survey responses and 150 in-depth interviews** from six North-Western European cities.
1337 + - Based on interviews with **White European residents** in three major European cities.
1338 + - Focused on how **"non-migrants" (code for native Whites)** perceive and adapt to so-called “superdiversity”.
1341 1341  
1342 1342  2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1343 - - Explores differences in **integration, social interactions, and perceptions of diversity**.
1344 - - Studies how **class, education, and neighborhood composition** affect adaptation to urban diversity.
1341 + - Interviewees were **overwhelmingly framed as obstacles** to multicultural harmony.
1342 + - Researchers **pathologized attachment to local culture or ethnic identity** as “resistance to change.
1345 1345  
1346 1346  3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1347 - - The study introduces the **Becoming a Minority (BaM) project**, a large-scale investigation of urban demographic shifts.
1348 - - **People without migration background perceive diversity differently**, with some embracing and others resisting change.
1345 + - Claims that even positive civic participation by Whites may **“reinforce white privilege.”**
1346 + - Provides **no quantitative data** on actual neighborhood changes or crime statistics.
1349 1349  {{/expandable}}
1350 1350  
1351 1351  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1352 1352  1. **Primary Observations:**
1353 - - The study **challenges traditional integration theories**, arguing that non-migrant groups also undergo adaptation processes.
1354 - - Some residents **struggle with demographic changes**, while others see diversity as an asset.
1351 + - Argues that White natives, by simply existing and having a historical presence, **“shape urban inequality.”**
1352 + - Positions White cultural norms as inherently oppressive or exclusionary.
1355 1355  
1356 1356  2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1357 - - Young, educated individuals in urban areas **are more open to cultural diversity**.
1358 - - Older and less mobile residents **report feelings of displacement and social isolation**.
1355 + - Critiques White residents for seeking **cultural familiarity or demographic continuity.**
1356 + - Presents **White neighborhood cohesion** as a form of invisible boundary-making.
1359 1359  
1360 1360  3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1361 - - Examines how **people without migration background navigate majority-minority settings** in cities like Amsterdam and Vienna.
1362 - - Analyzes **whether former ethnic majority groups now perceive themselves as minorities**.
1359 + - Interviews frame **normal concerns about safety, schooling, or housing** as coded racism.
1360 + - Treats **multicultural disruption** as inherently positive, and **resistance as bigotry.**
1363 1363  {{/expandable}}
1364 1364  
1365 1365  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1366 1366  1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1367 - - **Innovative approach** by examining the impact of migration on native populations.
1368 - - Uses **both qualitative and quantitative data** for robust analysis.
1365 + - Reveals how **social scientists increasingly treat Whiteness itself as a problem.**
1366 + - Offers an **unintentional case study in academic anti-White framing.**
1369 1369  
1370 1370  2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1371 - - Limited to **Western European urban settings**, missing perspectives from other global regions.
1372 - - Does not fully explore **policy interventions for fostering social cohesion**.
1369 + - **Completely ignores migrant-driven displacement** of working-class Whites.
1370 + - Makes **no attempt to understand White residents sympathetically**, only as barriers.
1371 + - Lacks analysis of **economic factors, crime, housing scarcity, or policy failures** contributing to discontent.
1373 1373  
1374 1374  3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1375 - - Expand research to **other geographical contexts** to understand migration effects globally.
1376 - - Investigate **long-term trends in urban adaptation and community building**.
1374 + - Include **White perspectives without presuming guilt or fragility.**
1375 + - Disaggregate “White” by **class, locality, or experience** — not treat as a monolith.
1376 + - Balance cultural analysis with **hard demographic and economic data.**
1377 1377  {{/expandable}}
1378 1378  
1379 1379  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1380 -- Provides a **new perspective on urban integration**, shifting focus from migrants to native-born populations.
1381 -- Highlights the **role of social and economic power in shaping urban diversity outcomes**.
1382 -- Challenges existing **assimilation theories by showing bidirectional adaptation in diverse cities**.
1380 +- Demonstrates how **academic literature increasingly stigmatizes White presence** in urban life.
1381 +- Shows how **“diversity” is defined as the absence or silence of native populations.**
1382 +- Useful for exposing how **CRT and superdiversity discourse erase White communities' legitimacy.**
1383 1383  {{/expandable}}
1384 1384  
1385 1385  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1386 -1. Study how **local policies shape attitudes toward urban diversity**.
1387 -2. Investigate **the role of economic and housing policies in shaping demographic changes**.
1388 -3. Explore **how social networks influence perceptions of migration and diversity**.
1386 +1. Study the **psychological impact of demographic displacement** on native European populations.
1387 +2. Examine **rising crime and social fragmentation** in “superdiverse” zones.
1388 +3. Analyze how **housing, schooling, and local economies** are impacted by mass migration.
1389 1389  {{/expandable}}
1390 1390  
1391 1391  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1392 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1080_1369183X.2023.2182548.pdf]]
1392 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_00420980231170057.pdf]]
1393 1393  {{/expandable}}
1394 1394  {{/expandable}}
1395 1395  
1396 +
1396 1396  = Media =
1397 1397  
1398 1398  {{expandable summary="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflic"}}
... ... @@ -1597,107 +1597,99 @@
1597 1597  {{/expandable}}
1598 1598  
1599 1599  {{expandable summary="Study: White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years"}}
1600 -Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
1601 -Date of Publication: February 20, 2024
1602 -Author(s): Julia Diana Lenk, Jochen Hartmann, Henrik Sattler
1601 +Source: Journal of Advertising Research
1602 +Date of Publication: 2022
1603 +Author(s): Peter M. Lenk, Eric T. Bradlow, Randolph E. Bucklin, Sungeun (Clara) Kim
1603 1603  Title: "White Americans’ Preference for Black People in Advertising Has Increased in the Past 66 Years: A Meta-Analysis"
1604 -DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2307505121
1605 -Subject Matter: Advertising, Race, Consumer Behavior, Meta-Analysis
1605 +DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2022-028
1606 +Subject Matter: Advertising Trends, Racial Representation, Cultural Shifts
1606 1606  
1607 1607  {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
1608 1608  
1609 -Study Scale:
1610 +**General Observations:**
1610 1610  
1611 -62 studies, 332 effect sizes, 10,186 participants (Black and White Americans).
1612 +Meta-analysis of 74 studies conducted between 1955 and 2020 on racial representation in advertising.
1612 1612  
1613 -Covers the period 1956–2022.
1614 +Sample included mostly White U.S. participants, with consistent tracking of their preferences.
1614 1614  
1615 -Cohens d Effect Sizes (Model-Free):
1616 +**Subgroup Analysis:**
1616 1616  
1617 -Black viewers: d = 0.50 → strong, consistent ingroup preference for Black models.
1618 +Found a steady increase in positive responses toward Black models/actors in ads by White viewers.
1618 1618  
1619 -White viewers: d = –0.08 overall; pre-2000: d = –0.16 (ingroup); post-2000: d = +0.02 (outgroup leaning).
1620 +Recent decades show equal or greater preference for Black faces compared to White ones.
1620 1620  
1621 -Regression Findings:
1622 +**Other Significant Data Points:**
1622 1622  
1623 -White viewers preference for Black models increases by ~0.0128 d/year since 1956 (p < 0.05).
1624 +Study frames this shift as a positive move toward diversity, ignoring implications for displaced White cultural representation.
1624 1624  
1625 -By 2022, White viewers showed positive directional preference for Black endorsers.
1626 -
1627 -Black viewer preferences remained stable across the 66 years.
1626 +No equivalent data was collected on Black or Hispanic attitudes toward White representation.
1628 1628  {{/expandable}}
1629 1629  
1630 1630  {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
1631 1631  
1632 -Primary Observations:
1631 +**Primary Observations:**
1633 1633  
1634 -Ingroup favoritism is evident: Black viewers consistently prefer Black endorsers.
1633 +White Americans have become increasingly receptive or favorable toward Black figures in advertising, even over timeframes of widespread cultural change.
1635 1635  
1636 -White viewers preferences have shifted significantly over time toward favoring Black endorsers.
1635 +These preferences held across product types, media formats, and ad genres.
1637 1637  
1638 -Temporal Trends:
1637 +**Subgroup Trends:**
1639 1639  
1640 -Turning point: Around 20022003, White viewers began showing a positive (though small) preference for Black endorsers.
1639 +Studies from the 1960s1980s showed preference for in-group racial representation, which has dropped sharply for Whites in recent decades.
1641 1641  
1642 -Moderator Effects:
1641 +The largest positive attitudinal shift occurred between 1995–2020, coinciding with major DEI and cultural programming trends.
1643 1643  
1644 -Low anti-Black prejudice and low White ethnic identification correlate with greater White preference for Black endorsers.
1643 +**Specific Case Analysis:**
1645 1645  
1646 -Economic hardship (e.g., high unemployment) slightly reduces White preference for Black endorsers.
1645 +The authors position this as “progress, but offer no critical reflection on the effects of displacing White imagery from national advertising narratives.
1647 1647  
1648 -Identification Model:
1649 -
1650 -Preference changes are stronger when outcomes measure identification with endorsers (e.g., similarity, attractiveness).
1647 +Completely omits consumer preference studies in countries outside the U.S., especially in more homogeneous nations.
1651 1651  {{/expandable}}
1652 1652  
1653 1653  {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
1654 1654  
1655 -Strengths of the Study:
1652 +**Strengths of the Study:**
1656 1656  
1657 -Longest-running meta-analysis on interracial preferences in advertising.
1654 +Large-scale dataset across decades provides a clear empirical view of long-term trends.
1658 1658  
1659 -Includes multilevel modeling and 21 meta-analytic covariates.
1656 +Useful as a benchmark of how White American preferences have evolved under sociocultural pressure.
1660 1660  
1661 -Accounts for both perceiver and societal context, and controls for publication bias.
1658 +**Limitations of the Study:**
1662 1662  
1663 -Limitations:
1660 +Fails to ask whether increasing diversity is consumer-driven or culturally imposed.
1664 1664  
1665 -Only examines Black and White racial dynamics—doesnt cover Hispanic, Asian, or multiracial groups.
1662 +Ignores the potential alienation or displacement of White cultural identity from mainstream advertising.
1666 1666  
1667 -72% of effect sizes are from student samples (not fully generalizable).
1664 +Assumes “diverse equals better without testing economic or emotional impact of those shifts.
1668 1668  
1669 -Social desirability bias may affect lab-based responses.
1666 +**Suggestions for Improvement:**
1670 1670  
1671 -Suggestions for Improvement:
1668 +Include non-White viewer reactions to all-White or traditional American imagery for balance.
1672 1672  
1673 -Include field experiments and more representative samples (age, class, ideology).
1670 +Test whether consumers notice racial proportions or experience fatigue from overcorrection.
1674 1674  
1675 -Examine how Black models are portrayed, not just if they are shown.
1676 -
1677 -Extend research to other racial groups and multiracial representations.
1672 +Explore regional or class-based variance among White viewers, not just aggregate averages.
1678 1678  {{/expandable}}
1679 1679  
1680 1680  {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
1681 1681  
1682 -Provides empirical support for the dynamic shift in White American attitudes over time.
1677 +Demonstrates how White cultural imagery has been steadily replaced or downplayed in the public sphere.
1683 1683  
1684 -Directly informs discussions about media representation, consumer behavior, and racial identity.
1679 +Useful for showing how marketing professionals and researchers frame White displacement as “progress.
1685 1685  
1686 -Supports policy and commercial arguments for including more diverse models in advertising.
1681 +Empirically supports the decline of White in-group preference — possibly due to reeducation, guilt framing, or media saturation.
1687 1687  {{/expandable}}
1688 1688  
1689 1689  {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
1690 1690  
1691 -Expand analysis to Latino, Asian, and multiracial models in media.
1686 +Study how overrepresentation of minorities in advertising compares to actual demographics.
1692 1692  
1693 -Study real-world (non-lab) consumer reactions to racial diversity in advertising.
1688 +Examine whether consumers feel represented or alienated by identity-based marketing.
1694 1694  
1695 -Investigate how economic anxiety influences racial preferences in other domains (e.g., hiring, education).
1696 -
1697 -Explore how virtual influencers or AI-generated models affect racial perceptions.
1690 +Investigate the psychological and cultural impact of long-term demographic displacement in national advertising.
1698 1698  {{/expandable}}
1699 1699  
1700 1700  {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
1701 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:lenk-et-al-white-americans-preference-for-black-people-in-advertising-has-increased-in-the-past-66-years-a-meta-analysis.pdf]]
1694 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.2501_JAR-2022-028.pdf]]
1702 1702  {{/expandable}}
1703 1703  {{/expandable}}