Given the increasing proportion of ethnic minority individuals in the United States and psychology's historical reliance on theories derived from Euro American populations, it is important to monitor the status of cultural diversity research. We conducted a 10-year follow-up to Hall and Maramba's (2001) report of cross-cultural (CC) and ethnic minority (EM) publication trends. Comparing data from 1993-1999 and 2003-2009, we found that research on CC and EM issues continues to be underrepresented in the literature, particularly in top-tier journals. The American Psychological Association and Association for Psychological Science journals mirrored this discouraging trend, and the absence of top CC and EM authors on their editorial boards may point to a structural barrier to broader inclusion of cultural diversity research. We also found that fewer top CC and EM researchers are employed in psychology departments than one might hope, reflecting predominant attitudes within psychology of CC and EM research as peripheral to the larger field. Although clear that few gains have been made despite numerous awareness-raising efforts, the precise deficits were somewhat obscured, because the CC and EM terminology employed by Hall and Maramba (2001) did not fully capture the breadth of cultural diversity research currently underway in psychology. Thus, future attempts to assess the field would benefit from wider-reaching search terms. Additionally, we suggest that attention to reorganization within the evolving fields of cultural diversity research and to developing new categories of inquiry for research on cultural diversity that maintain focus on minority statuses in the United States may be productive routes forward for psychology as a discipline.

No abstract

Ten weeks after the 1941 Japanese military attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, the U.S. government authorized the removal of more than 110,000 Japanese American men, women, and children from their homes in Western portions of the country to incarceration camps in desolate areas of the United States. The mass incarceration was portrayed as necessary to protect the country from potential acts of espionage or sabotage that might be committed by someone of Japanese ancestry. However, an extensive government review initiated in 1980 found no evidence of military necessity to support the removal decision and concluded that the incarceration was a grave injustice fueled by racism and war hysteria. The Japanese American wartime experience represents a powerful case example of race-based historical trauma. This article describes the consequences of the incarceration for Japanese Americans during and after their unjust imprisonment, their coping responses and healing strategies, as well as the impacts of receiving governmental redress more than four decades after the war’s end. Examination of this specific event provides a perspective for understanding the long-term, radiating effects of racial trauma and the process of healing, over a broad arc of time and across social contexts. Current relevance of the Japanese American incarceration and implications for the field of psychology are discussed.

Asian Americans are the fastest growing U.S. immigrant group, projected to become the largest immigrant group by 2065, but the quantity of research on Asian Americans' health has not mirrored changing demographics. Asian Americans have been understudied for more than 25 years, with only 0.17% of National Institutes of Health (NIH) expenditures allocated to projects including Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander populations (Ðoàn et al., 2019). This disproportionality may result in part from the model minority stereotype (MMS) being extended to health, perpetuating the ideas that Asian Americans are well-positioned with regard to health status and that associated research is not essential. Accordingly, the aims for this article are threefold: (a) bring attention to the inadequate representation of the Asian American population in health-related science, (b) question the MMS in health, and (c) outline potential pathways through which the MMS limits what is knowable on Asian American health issues and needs. We discuss the limited meaningfulness of nonrepresentative aggregated statistics purporting the model minority image and provide counterexamples. We also present a stereotype-constraints model with the MMS contributing to a bottleneck for Asian American health-related knowledge, accompanied by present-day circumstances (e.g., sparse data, few psychologists/behavioral medicine scientists focused on Asian American health). We conclude with initial recommendations for addressing MMS-associated constraints in psychology and more broadly.

No abstract