In other words, it's working precisely as it's intended to.

New study finds DEI initiatives creating 'hostile attribution bias'

Using materials from within the DEI movement, the study measured 'explicit bias'

By Jasmine Baehr
Fox News

New research from the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) and Rutgers University reveals that some diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training methods may cause psychological harm.

The study, released on Monday, shows significant increases in hostility and punitive attitudes among participants exposed to DEI pedagogy covering subjects like race, religion and caste.

This hostile attribution bias may contribute to increased intergroup hostility and authoritarian behavior in the long run, according to study co-author and NCRI Chief Science Officer Joel Finkelstein.

"What we did was we took a lot of these ideas that were found to still be very prominent in a lot of these DEI lectures and interventions and training," said Finkelstein in an interview with Fox News Digital. "And we said, 'Well, how is this going to affect people?' What we found is that when people are exposed to this ideology, what happens is they become hostile without any indication that anything racist has happened."

...

As DEI programs have become a major area of investment in recent years, their actual effectiveness remains a topic of debate, with NCRI's study suggesting they may exacerbate tensions rather than alleviate them. The study measured "explicit bias, social distancing, demonization, and authoritarian tendencies" with both the DEI materials and control materials.

Their study included sharing anti-racist DEI materials from thought leaders like Ibram X. Kendi and "White Fragility" author Robin DiAngelo with participants involved. Specifically, the NCRI focused on materials which emphasized awareness of and opposition to "systemic oppression," popularized by texts such as Kendi's "How to Be an Antiracist."

Those exposed to anti-racist materials were linked to heightened perceptions of racial bias in the study. Participants were also more likely to support punitive measures against perceived offenders of so-called "microaggressions," even in the absence of evidence.

You don't say. You don't say.

"And when people are supposed to see anti-racist material in the ideology, it looks like what happens is that they become more likely to punish for any evidence of wrongdoing," said Finkelstein. "That includes protesting people, calling for dismissal, demanding public apologies, receiving people calling for their relocation. These punitive measures are, in some cases, costing people their jobs."

Wow. Five years into this vicious racist madness and academics are finally actually looking into it.

Take your time, though, "Experts." Take your time.

These results suggest that anti-Islamophobia training inspired by ISPU materials may cause individuals to assume unfair treent of Muslim people, even when no evidence of bias or unfairness is present. This effect highlights a broader issue: DEI narratives that focus heavily on victimization and systemic oppression can foster unwarranted distrust and suspicions of institutions and alter subjective assessments of events.

I'm learning so much of what I already knew.

Here comes a big shock:

One key takeaway from Finkelstein in the NCRI study is that the authoritarianism that comes from hostile attribution bias looks different in the 21st century.

According to Finkelstein, those who are likely to carry hostilities are "people who are higher in what's called left-wing authoritarianism. This is now a steady phenomenon. We the people have been studying right-wing authoritarianism since World War II. It's really only in the past 10 or 15 years that people have started saying, 'Wait a minute, this is on the left, too."

You don't say? Really?

...

When reached for comment, Kendi slammed both Fox News and the study, calling it "pseudoscience."

As opposed to Henry "Ibram Kendi" Rogers' true racist science.

The report says that when people were exposed to Robin D'Angelo's and Henry Rogers' racially-incendiary claims, they were much, much more likely to claim that they were experiencing "microaggressions" based on nothing at all. They compared groups primed by reading these "anti-racist" books to normal, uninfected people. The uninfected people were chill. The "anti-racist" people saw racism everywhere, claimed non-violent people were committing "literal violence," and assumed that anyone evaluating them must be white. (That is, they assumed that anyone whose race they could not see but held a grudge against must be white.)

A little bar graph for those of you who enjoy graphs and/or bars.