Skip to Content
0 Votes

Wiki source code of Studies: Dating

Version 10.1 by Ryan C on 2025/06/21 06:47
Show last authors
1 = Dating =
2
3 {{expandable summary="Study: Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace – Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"}}
4 **Source:** *Social Forces*
5 **Date of Publication:** *2016*
6 **Author(s):** *Stephanie M. Curington, Kevin K. Anderson, and Jennifer Glass*
7 **Title:** *"Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace: Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"*
8 **DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007](https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007)
9 **Subject Matter:** *Race and Dating, Multiracial Identity, Online Behavior*
10
11 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
12 1. **General Observations:**
13 - Data drawn from **over 1 million messaging records** from an online dating site.
14 - Focused on how **monoracial users** (especially Whites) interact with **multiracial daters**.
15
16 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
17 - **Multiracial Black/White and Asian/White women** received **fewer responses from White men** than their monoracial counterparts.
18 - White daters showed **stronger preferences for monoracial identities**, particularly **own-race pairings**.
19
20 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
21 - **Multiracial men** fared worse than multiracial women across most pairings.
22 - **Latina/White and Asian/White multiracial women** were **more positively received by Black and Hispanic men**.
23 {{/expandable}}
24
25 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
26 1. **Primary Observations:**
27 - White users demonstrated a clear pattern of **in-group preference**, preferring other White users (monoracial or partially White) over more ambiguous multiracial identities.
28 - Authors suggest this reflects **"boundary-maintaining behavior"** and **"latent racial bias"**.
29
30 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
31 - **Multiracial women with partial minority backgrounds** were more acceptable to non-White men than White men.
32 - Multiracial daters were **often treated as ambiguous or “less desirable”** in ways the authors frame as **resistance to racial integration**.
33
34 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
35 - The most rejected group? **Black/White multiracial men**, especially by **White women**, which the authors do not frame as bias in the same way.
36 - The study shows **asymmetrical concern** — when Whites select inwardly, it's seen as racial boundary policing; when minorities do it, it's not pathologized.
37 {{/expandable}}
38
39 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
40 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
41 - Large, real-world dataset gives useful behavioral insight into **racial preferences in dating**.
42 - Raises legitimate questions about **how race, desire, and group identity intersect**.
43
44 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
45 - Frames **normal in-group preference among Whites as "resistance to multiraciality"**, rather than neutral human patterning.
46 - Ignores **similar or stronger in-group preference among Black and Asian users**, which could indicate *universal patterns*, not White exceptionalism.
47 - Uses CRT framing to subtly **morally indict Whites for preferring Whites**, while exempting other groups.
48
49 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
50 - Treat all in-group preference equally across racial groups — not just when Whites do it.
51 - Disaggregate by age, education, and regional variation to control for confounds.
52 - Consider whether **multiracial identity is ambiguous** by nature and if that ambiguity reduces clarity of signals in dating.
53 {{/expandable}}
54
55 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
56 - Provides a data point in the **ongoing academic effort to pathologize White selectiveness**, even in private, personal domains like dating.
57 - Demonstrates how **racial preferences are only considered “problematic” when they preserve White group boundaries**.
58 - Supports analysis of **how DEI-aligned narratives seek to dissolve in-group loyalty under the guise of openness and inclusion**.
59 {{/expandable}}
60
61 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
62 1. Investigate how **media and dating platforms reinforce multiracialism as normative** despite evidence of natural in-group selection.
63 2. Study the **psychological effects of being told your preferences are morally wrong if you're White**.
64 3. Explore how **multiracial identities are strategically framed** depending on political or cultural goals — exoticization, integration, or guilt projection.
65 {{/expandable}}
66
67 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
68 [[Download Full Study>>attach:Curington et al. - Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Websit.pdf]]
69 {{/expandable}}
70 {{/expandable}}
71
72 {{expandable summary="
73
74 Study: “A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"}}
75 **Source:** *Sociology of Race and Ethnicity*
76 **Date of Publication:** *2020*
77 **Author(s):** *Andrew R. Flores and Ariela Schachter*
78 **Title:** *"“A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"*
79 **DOI:** [10.1177/2332649219871232](https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649219871232)
80 **Subject Matter:** *Interracial Dating, Racial Stereotyping, Online Behavior*
81
82 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
83 1. **General Observations:**
84 - Used **experimental survey data** from a nationally representative sample (N = 1,070).
85 - Participants evaluated hypothetical dating profiles of White individuals who expressed interest in Black, Latino, or Asian partners.
86
87 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
88 - **White men interested in Black women** were rated as **less cultured, more aggressive, and lower class**.
89 - White women interested in Black men were **viewed as less intelligent and more promiscuous**.
90 - **Interest in Asian partners** did not carry the same negative stereotypes; in some cases, it improved perceived desirability.
91
92 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
93 - **Latino partners** were seen more neutrally, though men who dated them were seen as more “dominant.”
94 - Across the board, **Whites who dated within their race were viewed most favorably**.
95 {{/expandable}}
96
97 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
98 1. **Primary Observations:**
99 - Interracial daters—especially those dating Black individuals—are **subject to negative assumptions** about intelligence, class, and morality.
100 - Stereotypes persist even in **hypothetical online contexts**, showing deep cultural associations.
101
102 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
103 - White men who prefer Black women face **masculinity-linked stigma**, often tied to “urban” or “ghetto” tropes.
104 - White women dating Black men are **framed as sexually deviant or socially undesirable**, particularly by other Whites.
105
106 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
107 - The most negatively perceived pairing was **White woman/Black man**, reinforcing long-standing cultural anxieties.
108 - Respondents judged interracial daters not just by race but by **projected cultural assimilation or rejection**.
109 {{/expandable}}
110
111 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
112 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
113 - Reveals **latent racial boundaries** in contemporary dating preferences.
114 - Uses **controlled experimental design** to expose socially unacceptable but real biases.
115
116 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
117 - Relies on **self-reported reactions to profiles**, not real-world dating behavior.
118 - **Fails to analyze anti-White framing** in the assumptions about White participants who prefer other races.
119 - Assumes stigma is irrational without investigating **rational in-group preference or cultural concerns**.
120
121 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
122 - Include **reverse scenarios** (e.g., Black or Latino individuals expressing preference for Whites).
123 - Examine how **media portrayal of interracial couples** influences perception and desirability.
124 - Account for **class and education overlaps** that could explain perceived traits.
125 {{/expandable}}
126
127 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
128 - Highlights how **Whites who date outside their race—particularly with Blacks—are pathologized**, even within their own community.
129 - Shows that **Whiteness is penalized** when paired with non-Whiteness, reinforcing social costs for racial mixing.
130 - Useful for understanding **how stigma around interracial relationships is unevenly applied**, with anti-White moral overtones.
131 {{/expandable}}
132
133 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
134 1. Study how **in-group dating preferences differ across races** and are morally interpreted.
135 2. Investigate how **class and education** affect perceptions of interracial relationships.
136 3. Examine whether **Whites are disproportionately judged** when deviating from group norms vs. other races.
137 {{/expandable}}
138
139 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
140 [[Download Full Study>>attach:Flores - 2020 - “A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured” Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Dater.pdf]]
141 {{/expandable}}
142 {{/expandable}}
143
144 {{expandable summary="
145
146 Study: E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"}}
147 **Source:** *National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)*
148 **Date of Publication:** *2024*
149 **Author(s):** *Umit Gurun, Daniel Solomon*
150 **Title:** *"E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"*
151 **DOI:** [10.3386/w31978](https://doi.org/10.3386/w31978)
152 **Subject Matter:** *Demography, Social Cohesion, Diversity Effects on Fertility*
153
154 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
155 1. **General Observations:**
156 - Used large-scale demographic, economic, and census data across **1,800+ U.S. counties**.
157 - Found a **strong negative correlation between local diversity and White fertility rates**.
158 - Quantified impact: a 1 SD increase in ethnic diversity leads to a **4–6% drop in birth rates**.
159
160 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
161 - Decline most pronounced among **non-Hispanic Whites**, especially in suburban and semi-urban areas.
162 - **No significant birth rate drop observed among Hispanic or Black populations** under the same conditions.
163
164 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
165 - Diversity increases linked to **reduced marriage rates**, especially among Whites.
166 - Authors suggest **“erosion of social cohesion and trust”** as mediating factors.
167 {{/expandable}}
168
169 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
170 1. **Primary Observations:**
171 - Ethnic diversity significantly **reduces total fertility rates**, independent of economic or educational variables.
172 - **Social fragmentation** and perceived dissimilarity drive fertility suppression.
173
174 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
175 - White populations respond to diversity with lower family formation.
176 - **Cultural distance** and loss of shared norms are possible causes.
177
178 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
179 - High-diversity metro areas saw steepest declines in White birth rates over the past two decades.
180 - Study challenges mainstream assumptions that diversity has neutral or positive demographic effects.
181 {{/expandable}}
182
183 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
184 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
185 - Offers **quantitative backing for claims long treated as taboo** in public discourse.
186 - Applies **robust statistical methods** and cross-validates with multiple data sources.
187
188 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
189 - Avoids discussing **racial preference, ethnic tension, or cultural conflict** explicitly.
190 - Authors stop short of acknowledging **the demographic replacement implication** of sustained low White fertility.
191
192 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
193 - Include **qualitative data on reasons for delayed or avoided parenthood** among Whites in diverse areas.
194 - Examine **media messaging and policy environments** that could accelerate these trends.
195 {{/expandable}}
196
197 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
198 - Confirms a **central premise** of the White demographic decline thesis.
199 - Demonstrates that **diversity is not neutral** but **functionally suppressive to White reproduction**.
200 - Offers solid **empirical support against the utopian assumptions** of multiculturalism.
201 {{/expandable}}
202
203 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
204 1. Examine **fertility effects of diversity in European countries** experiencing immigration-driven change.
205 2. Study **how school demographics and crime perception** affect reproductive decision-making.
206 3. Explore **policy frameworks that support demographic stability for founding populations**.
207 {{/expandable}}
208
209 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
210 [[Download Full Study>>attach:12.Gurun_Solomon_Diversity_BirthRates.pdf]]
211 {{/expandable}}
212 {{/expandable}}
213
214 {{expandable summary="
215
216 Study: The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"}}
217 **Source:** *Porn Studies*
218 **Date of Publication:** *2015*
219 **Author(s):** *Noah Tsika*
220 **Title:** *"The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"*
221 **DOI:** [10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389](https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389)
222 **Subject Matter:** *Pornography Studies, Race and Sexuality, Cultural Critique*
223
224 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
225 1. **General Observations:**
226 - This is a **qualitative content analysis** of gonzo pornography, particularly interracial porn involving Black men and White women.
227 - The author reviews **select films, not a dataset**, using them to extrapolate broad cultural claims about race and sexuality.
228
229 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
230 - Claims that **interracial porn “others” and dehumanizes Black men**, yet selectively **frames Black male sexual aggression as liberatory**.
231 - The author accuses White male consumers of **fetishizing Black men** as both threats and tools for their own “colonial guilt.”
232
233 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
234 - No empirical evidence, just interpretive readings of scenes and film dialogue.
235 - Repeatedly criticizes **White directors and actors** as complicit in perpetuating “White supremacy through porn.”
236 {{/expandable}}
237
238 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
239 1. **Primary Observations:**
240 - Argues that **gonzo interracial porn functions as racial propaganda**, reinforcing White guilt while commodifying Black masculinity.
241 - Portrays White women as willing participants in a fantasy of racial domination that allegedly “liberates” Black men.
242
243 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
244 - White male viewers are pathologized as both sexually repressed and voyeuristically complicit in anti-Black racism.
245 - Black male performers are framed as both victims of racial commodification and **agents of resistance through hypersexuality**.
246
247 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
248 - 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.
249 - The narrative treats **racially charged sexual violence as deconstructive**, only when it reverses traditional racial dynamics.
250 {{/expandable}}
251
252 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
253 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
254 - Useful in showcasing how **critical race theory invades even the most apolitical domains** (porn consumption) and turns them into race war battlegrounds.
255 - Offers insight into how **White heterosexuality is recoded as colonialism** in activist academia.
256
257 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
258 - **No statistical basis**, relies entirely on biased interpretive analysis of fringe media.
259 - Presumes **intent and audience motivation** without surveys, viewership data, or cross-cultural comparison.
260 - Treats Black aggression as empowering and White sexuality as inherently oppressive — a double standard.
261
262 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
263 - Include comparative data on how different racial groups are portrayed in pornography across genres.
264 - Analyze how **minority-run porn studios frame interracial themes** — not just White-directed media.
265 - Address how racial fetishization **harms all groups**, not just Black men.
266 {{/expandable}}
267
268 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
269 - Exemplifies how **racialized sexual narratives are reinterpreted to indict White identity**, even in consumer entertainment.
270 - Shows how **DEI and CRT frameworks are applied to pornographic material** to pathologize White maleness while sanctifying non-White hypermasculinity.
271 - Highlights the **academic bias that treats transgressive content as empowering when it serves anti-White narratives**.
272 {{/expandable}}
273
274 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
275 1. Study how **interracial porn narratives differ when produced by non-White vs. White directors**.
276 2. Examine **how racial power is portrayed in same-sex vs. heterosexual interracial porn**.
277 3. Investigate whether the **fetishization of Black masculinity fuels unrealistic expectations and destructive stereotypes** for both Black and White men.
278 {{/expandable}}
279
280 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
281 [[Download Full Study>>attach:Dinest - The White Man's Burden Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity.pdf]]
282 {{/expandable}}
283 {{/expandable}}
284
285 {{expandable summary="
286
287 Study: Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"}}
288 **Source:** *Social Science Research*
289 **Date of Publication:** *2009*
290 **Author(s):** *Cynthia Feliciano, Belinda Robnett, Golnaz Komaie*
291 **Title:** *"Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"*
292 **DOI:** [10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004)
293 **Subject Matter:** *Online Dating, Racial Preferences, CRT Framing of White Intimacy*
294
295 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
296 1. **General Observations:**
297 - Based on data from **Love@aol.com**, analyzing **over 6,000 profiles** from California.
298 - The study investigated **racial preferences listed explicitly** in dating profiles.
299
300 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
301 - **White women were least likely to express openness to interracial dating**, particularly with Black and Asian men.
302 - **White men also showed exclusion**, but were more open than White women.
303
304 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
305 - The authors labeled preference for one’s own race as **“racial exclusion”**.
306 - Profiles by non-White users expressing same-race preferences were **not similarly problematized**.
307 {{/expandable}}
308
309 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
310 1. **Primary Observations:**
311 - **White in-group preference was framed as discriminatory**, regardless of intent or context.
312 - Dating preferences were interpreted as a **“reinforcement of racial hierarchies”**.
313
314 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
315 - The study suggested **White women’s selectivity** stemmed from **cultural and structural advantages**, implying racial gatekeeping.
316 - Did not critically examine **non-White preferences** for their own race.
317
318 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
319 - 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.
320 - **No racial preference was criticized except when it protected White boundaries.**
321 {{/expandable}}
322
323 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
324 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
325 - Large dataset from real-world dating profiles.
326 - Provides rare insight into **gendered patterns of racial preference**.
327
328 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
329 - **Frames personal preference as political discrimination** when expressed by White users.
330 - **Fails to control for cultural compatibility, attraction patterns, or religious values.**
331 - **Double standard** in analysis — **non-White selectivity is ignored or justified.**
332
333 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
334 - Should distinguish **racial animus from in-group preference**.
335 - Include **psychological, aesthetic, and cultural compatibility data**.
336 - Apply **equal critical lens to all racial groups**, not just Whites.
337 {{/expandable}}
338
339 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
340 - Reinforces how CRT-aligned research pathologizes **White in-group dating preferences**.
341 - Supports the claim that **White intimacy boundaries are uniquely scrutinized** and politicized.
342 - Demonstrates how even non-political behavior (e.g., dating) is racialized when it involves Whites.
343 {{/expandable}}
344
345 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
346 1. Study how **dating preferences vary by upbringing, media influence, and culture**, not just race.
347 2. Analyze **racial preferences across all groups** with equal rigor and skepticism.
348 3. Examine the **mental health impact of stigmatizing in-group preference** among Whites.
349 {{/expandable}}
350
351 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
352 [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.ssresearch.2009.04.004.pdf]]
353 {{/expandable}}
354 {{/expandable}}
355
356 {{expandable summary="
357
358 Study: Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World"}}
359 **Source:** *Journal of European Psychoanalysis*
360 **Date of Publication:** *2009*
361 **Author(s):** *Kristen Fink* *Jewish*))
362 **Title:** *"Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World: Sexual relationships between black men and white women as a cause of decline"*
363 **DOI:** *Unavailable – Psychoanalytic essay publication*
364 **Subject Matter:** *Race and Sexuality, Psychoanalysis, Cultural Demoralization*
365
366 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
367 1. **General Observations:**
368 - This is a **psychoanalytic essay**, not an empirical study.
369 - Uses **Freudian and Lacanian theory** to explore symbolic meanings of interracial sex.
370 - Frames **Black male–White female pairings** as psychologically disruptive to the White male ego and Western civilization.
371
372 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
373 - Positions **Black men as symbolic rivals** to emasculated Western (White) men.
374 - **White women’s interracial attraction** is framed as rebellion or rejection of Western order.
375
376 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
377 - The essay proposes that **sexual representation in media** is demoralizing to White culture.
378 - Uses **high theory language** to justify what is ultimately an anti-White cultural narrative.
379 {{/expandable}}
380
381 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
382 1. **Primary Observations:**
383 - **Interracial sexual dynamics** are framed as central to **Western decline**.
384 - **White masculinity is portrayed as passive, obsolete, or neurotic** in contrast to hypermasculinized Blackness.
385
386 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
387 - Suggests White men internalize emasculation through exposure to interracial symbolism.
388 - Sees **cultural loss of confidence** in White society as stemming from racial-sexual symbolism.
389
390 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
391 - Analyzes media tropes (e.g., interracial porn, pop culture) through the lens of psychoanalytic guilt and transgression.
392 - Never critiques the **ideological project of glorifying Blackness at the expense of White identity**.
393 {{/expandable}}
394
395 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
396 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
397 - Reveals how **elite academic disciplines like psychoanalysis** are used to mask anti-White narratives in esoteric jargon.
398 - Serves as **ideological evidence** of demoralization tactics embedded in cultural theory.
399
400 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
401 - No empirical data, surveys, or statistical analysis — purely speculative.
402 - **Does not critique hypersexualization of Black men** or the dehumanizing aspects of the fetish.
403 - Assumes **White masculinity must passively accept its symbolic erasure** as psychoanalytically “natural.”
404
405 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
406 - Include **perspectives from White men and women** on how these portrayals affect their psychological well-being.
407 - Disentangle psychoanalytic theory from **racial guilt ideology**.
408 - Explore **mutual respect-based frameworks** for interracial dynamics rather than ones rooted in humiliation or power symbolism.
409 {{/expandable}}
410
411 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
412 - Illustrates how **race, sex, and culture are manipulated to undermine White self-perception**.
413 - Demonstrates how **academic elites frame White decline as psychologically necessary or deserved**.
414 - Provides ideological background for modern media trends that eroticize racial power imbalance.
415 {{/expandable}}
416
417 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
418 1. Analyze how psychoanalytic language is used to **justify racial inversion in cultural dominance**.
419 2. Examine the **role of pornography in demoralization campaigns** targeting White men.
420 3. Explore how elite journals create **ideological cover for overt anti-White sentiment**.
421 {{/expandable}}
422
423 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
424 [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.Fink_Black_Penis_Demoralization.pdf]]
425 {{/expandable}}
426 {{/expandable}}
427
428 {{expandable summary="
429
430 Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"}}
431 **Source:** *JAMA Network Open*
432 **Date of Publication:** *2020*
433 **Author(s):** *Ueda P, Mercer CH, Ghaznavi C, Herbenick D.*
434 **Title:** *"Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"*
435 **DOI:** [10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3833)
436 **Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Sexual Behavior, Demography* 
437
438 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
439 1. **General Observations:**
440 - Study analyzed **General Social Survey (2000-2018)** data.
441 - Found **declining trends in sexual activity** among young adults.
442
443 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
444 - Decreases in sexual activity were most prominent among **men aged 18-34**.
445 - Factors like **marital status, employment, and psychological well-being** were associated with changes in sexual frequency.
446
447 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
448 - Frequency of sexual activity decreased by **8-10%** over the studied period.
449 - Number of sexual partners remained **relatively stable** despite declining activity rates.
450 {{/expandable}}
451
452 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
453 1. **Primary Observations:**
454 - A significant decline in sexual frequency, especially among **younger men**.
455 - Shifts in relationship dynamics and economic stressors may contribute to the trend.
456
457 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
458 - More pronounced decline among **unmarried individuals**.
459 - No major change observed for **married adults** over time.
460
461 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
462 - **Mental health and employment status** were correlated with decreased activity.
463 - Social factors such as **screen time and digital entertainment consumption** are potential contributors.
464 {{/expandable}}
465
466 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
467 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
468 - **Large sample size** from a nationally representative dataset.
469 - **Longitudinal design** enables trend analysis over time.
470
471 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
472 - Self-reported data may introduce **response bias**.
473 - No direct causal mechanisms tested for the decline in sexual activity.
474
475 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
476 - Further studies should incorporate **qualitative data** on behavioral shifts.
477 - Additional factors such as **economic shifts and social media usage** need exploration.
478 {{/expandable}}
479
480 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
481 - Provides evidence on **changing demographic behaviors** in relation to relationships and social interactions.
482 - Highlights the role of **mental health, employment, and societal changes** in personal behaviors.
483 {{/expandable}}
484
485 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
486 1. Investigate the **impact of digital media consumption** on relationship dynamics.
487 2. Examine **regional and cultural differences** in sexual activity trends.
488 {{/expandable}}
489
490 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
491
492 {{/expandable}}
493 {{/expandable}}
494
495 {{expandable summary="Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"}}
496 **Source:** *Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica*
497 **Date of Publication:** *2012*
498 **Author(s):** *Ravisha M. Srinivasjois, Shreya Shah, Prakesh S. Shah, Knowledge Synthesis Group on Determinants of Preterm/LBW Births*
499 **Title:** *"Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"*
500 **DOI:** [10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x)
501 **Subject Matter:** *Neonatal Health, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Racial Disparities*
502
503 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
504 1. **General Observations:**
505 - Meta-analysis of **26,335,596 singleton births** from eight studies.
506 - **Higher risk of adverse birth outcomes in biracial couples** than White couples, but lower than Black couples.
507
508 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
509 - **Maternal race had a stronger influence than paternal race** on birth outcomes.
510 - **Black mother–White father (BMWF) couples** had a higher risk than **White mother–Black father (WMBF) couples**.
511
512 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
513 - **Adjusted Odds Ratios (aORs) for key outcomes:**
514 - **Low birthweight (LBW):** WMBF (1.21), BMWF (1.75), Black mother–Black father (BMBF) (2.08).
515 - **Preterm births (PTB):** WMBF (1.17), BMWF (1.37), BMBF (1.78).
516 - **Stillbirths:** WMBF (1.43), BMWF (1.51), BMBF (1.85).
517 {{/expandable}}
518
519 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
520 1. **Primary Observations:**
521 - **Biracial couples face a gradient of risk**: higher than White couples but lower than Black couples.
522 - **Maternal race plays a more significant role** in pregnancy outcomes.
523
524 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
525 - **Black mothers (regardless of paternal race) had the highest risk of LBW and PTB**.
526 - **White mothers with Black fathers had a lower risk** than Black mothers with White fathers.
527
528 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
529 - The **weathering hypothesis** suggests that **long-term stress exposure** contributes to higher adverse birth risks in Black mothers.
530 - **Genetic and environmental factors** may interact to influence birth outcomes.
531 {{/expandable}}
532
533 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
534 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
535 - **Largest meta-analysis** on racial disparities in birth outcomes.
536 - Uses **adjusted statistical models** to account for confounding variables.
537
538 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
539 - Data limited to **Black-White biracial couples**, excluding other racial groups.
540 - **Socioeconomic and healthcare access factors** not fully explored.
541
542 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
543 - Future studies should examine **Asian, Hispanic, and Indigenous biracial couples**.
544 - Investigate **long-term health effects on infants from biracial pregnancies**.
545 {{/expandable}}
546
547 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
548 - Provides **critical insights into racial disparities** in maternal and infant health.
549 - Supports **research on genetic and environmental influences on neonatal health**.
550 - Highlights **how maternal race plays a more significant role than paternal race** in birth outcomes.
551 {{/expandable}}
552
553 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
554 1. Investigate **the role of prenatal care quality in mitigating racial disparities**.
555 2. Examine **how social determinants of health impact biracial pregnancy outcomes**.
556 3. Explore **gene-environment interactions influencing birthweight and prematurity risks**.
557 {{/expandable}}
558
559 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
560 [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1600-0412.2012.01501.xAbstract.pdf]]
561 {{/expandable}}
562 {{/expandable}}
563
564 {{expandable summary="Study: One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"}}
565 **Source:** *Current Psychology*
566 **Date of Publication:** *2024*
567 **Author(s):** *Brandon Sparks, Alexandra M. Zidenberg, Mark E. Olver*
568 **Title:** *"One is the Loneliest Number: Involuntary Celibacy (Incel), Mental Health, and Loneliness"*
569 **DOI:** [10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04275-z)
570 **Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Mental Health, Social Isolation*
571
572 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
573 1. **General Observations:**
574 - Study analyzed **67 self-identified incels** and **103 non-incel men**.
575 - Incels reported **higher loneliness and lower social support** compared to non-incels.
576
577 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
578 - Incels exhibited **higher levels of depression, anxiety, and self-critical rumination**.
579 - **Social isolation was a key factor** differentiating incels from non-incels.
580
581 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
582 - 95% of incels in the study reported **having depression**, with 38% receiving a formal diagnosis.
583 - **Higher externalization of blame** was linked to stronger incel identification.
584 {{/expandable}}
585
586 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
587 1. **Primary Observations:**
588 - Incels experience **heightened rejection sensitivity and loneliness**.
589 - Lack of social support correlates with **worse mental health outcomes**.
590
591 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
592 - **Avoidant attachment styles** were a strong predictor of incel identity.
593 - **Mate value perceptions** significantly differed between incels and non-incels.
594
595 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
596 - Incels **engaged in fewer positive coping mechanisms** such as emotional support or positive reframing.
597 - Instead, they relied on **solitary coping strategies**, worsening their isolation.
598 {{/expandable}}
599
600 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
601 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
602 - **First quantitative study** on incels’ social isolation and mental health.
603 - **Robust sample size** and validated psychological measures.
604
605 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
606 - Sample drawn from **Reddit communities**, which may not represent all incels.
607 - **No causal conclusions**—correlations between isolation and inceldom need further research.
608
609 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
610 - Future studies should **compare incel forum users vs. non-users**.
611 - Investigate **potential intervention strategies** for social integration.
612 {{/expandable}}
613
614 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
615 - Highlights **mental health vulnerabilities** within the incel community.
616 - Supports research on **loneliness, attachment styles, and social dominance orientation**.
617 - Examines how **peer rejection influences self-perceived mate value**.
618 {{/expandable}}
619
620 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
621 1. Explore how **online community participation** affects incel mental health.
622 2. Investigate **cognitive biases** influencing self-perceived rejection among incels.
623 3. Assess **therapeutic interventions** to address incel social isolation.
624 {{/expandable}}
625
626 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
627 [[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1007_s12144-023-04275-z.pdf]]
628 {{/expandable}}
629 {{/expandable}}

XWiki AI Chat