Abstract:Social and personality psychologists aim to “understand individuals in their social contexts for the benefit of all people” (Society for Personality and Social Psychology, n.d.). Though this mission is admirable, value statements do little, on their own, to create an inclusive, high-quality science that benefits humanity broadly. In this research, we evaluate relationship science, a major subfield of social–personality psychology, illustrating both the unique diversity-relevant challenges faced by particular s… Show more
“…My next recommendation is related to participant recruitment methods. It has been mentioned before (McGorray et al, 2023), though I would be remiss to not mention it in this commentary, as it may be what best helps diversify relationship science. This recommendation is to collaborate with relationship scientists in other geographic regions, as this may help with not only getting connected with a particular group that may be hard to reach but may also help with learning more about a particular group and how to connect with them in a manner that is culturally sensitive.…”
Section: Recommendations For Relationship Scientistsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In addition, we should aim to be inclusive in the language that we use to describe our participants. Often, I have seen mixed-sex romantic couples referred to as heterosexual couples in the literature (as also noted in McGorray et al, 2023). It should not be assumed that in relationships in which there is one man and one woman, both the man and the woman are heterosexual.…”
Section: Recommendations For Relationship Scientistsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…I am most familiar with the literature on these lines of work, and I have only recently begun to educate myself on the literature regarding the diversity of the samples commonly studied in relationship science (Curran & Randall, 2023; McGorray et al, 2023; Williamson et al, 2022). I have not conducted a systematic review of the literature myself (Curran & Randall, 2023; Ogolsky & Stafford, 2022; Weiser et al, 2022), which may limit the recommendations I can make regarding the diversification of relationship science.…”
Section: Positionality Statementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Above, I discussed my positionality, as well as what I currently understand on human diversity based on my experience as an International Section Peer Mentor, as well as what I have read on the topic (Karney et al, 2004; McGorray et al, 2023; Williamson et al, 2022). Below are the recommendations that I wish to give to relationship scientists, regarding the diversification of the field.…”
Section: Recommendations For Relationship Scientistsmentioning
Since Spring 2021, I have been on the Editorial Board for Personal Relationships as an International Section Peer Mentor. In the International Section, I work to diversify relationship science with a team of relationship scientists. In this role, I have learned more about diversity, and in turn, I have become inspired to reflect on other strategies I could partake in to assist in further diversifying relationship science. I aim to share those insights in this commentary through recommendations for relationship scientists. In addition to sharing these recommendations, I describe my positionality in a positionality statement, and I provide background on what diversity means to me and my current expertise in the subject matter. There are several recommendations in this commentary, and they involve all steps of the research process. I encourage relationship scientists to educate themselves, to consider the various diversities when developing their research questions, to initiate collaborations with and learn from other research teams whenever possible, to ensure that they are not unintentionally excluding underrepresented groups, to reflect on how they report participant demographic data, and to consider drafting their own positionality statements.
“…My next recommendation is related to participant recruitment methods. It has been mentioned before (McGorray et al, 2023), though I would be remiss to not mention it in this commentary, as it may be what best helps diversify relationship science. This recommendation is to collaborate with relationship scientists in other geographic regions, as this may help with not only getting connected with a particular group that may be hard to reach but may also help with learning more about a particular group and how to connect with them in a manner that is culturally sensitive.…”
Section: Recommendations For Relationship Scientistsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In addition, we should aim to be inclusive in the language that we use to describe our participants. Often, I have seen mixed-sex romantic couples referred to as heterosexual couples in the literature (as also noted in McGorray et al, 2023). It should not be assumed that in relationships in which there is one man and one woman, both the man and the woman are heterosexual.…”
Section: Recommendations For Relationship Scientistsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…I am most familiar with the literature on these lines of work, and I have only recently begun to educate myself on the literature regarding the diversity of the samples commonly studied in relationship science (Curran & Randall, 2023; McGorray et al, 2023; Williamson et al, 2022). I have not conducted a systematic review of the literature myself (Curran & Randall, 2023; Ogolsky & Stafford, 2022; Weiser et al, 2022), which may limit the recommendations I can make regarding the diversification of relationship science.…”
Section: Positionality Statementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Above, I discussed my positionality, as well as what I currently understand on human diversity based on my experience as an International Section Peer Mentor, as well as what I have read on the topic (Karney et al, 2004; McGorray et al, 2023; Williamson et al, 2022). Below are the recommendations that I wish to give to relationship scientists, regarding the diversification of the field.…”
Section: Recommendations For Relationship Scientistsmentioning
Since Spring 2021, I have been on the Editorial Board for Personal Relationships as an International Section Peer Mentor. In the International Section, I work to diversify relationship science with a team of relationship scientists. In this role, I have learned more about diversity, and in turn, I have become inspired to reflect on other strategies I could partake in to assist in further diversifying relationship science. I aim to share those insights in this commentary through recommendations for relationship scientists. In addition to sharing these recommendations, I describe my positionality in a positionality statement, and I provide background on what diversity means to me and my current expertise in the subject matter. There are several recommendations in this commentary, and they involve all steps of the research process. I encourage relationship scientists to educate themselves, to consider the various diversities when developing their research questions, to initiate collaborations with and learn from other research teams whenever possible, to ensure that they are not unintentionally excluding underrepresented groups, to reflect on how they report participant demographic data, and to consider drafting their own positionality statements.
“…Findings from a daily diary study suggest that many of the negative identity-relevant experiences bi+ people report occur at the interpersonal level, including in romantic contexts (Flanders et al, 2016). Both experiences within one's relationships and others’ perceptions of those relationships may influence bi+ people's feelings of identity visibility, making their relationships an important focus for further research (e.g., Feinstein & Dyar, 2018), especially because sexual minority individuals’ relationships are understudied (McGorray et al, in press). In the present article, we examine how experiences related to relationship status, relationship type, and romantic partner behaviors are linked to a sense of identity visibility.…”
Section: Bi+ Identity Visibility and Well-beingmentioning
Bi+ people—those who are attracted to multiple gender groups and who use labels such as bisexual, pansexual, queer, or fluid—encounter challenges related to making their identities visible and experience reduced well-being relative to their gay/lesbian and heterosexual peers. In a sample of 450 bi+ participants, we pursue two primary goals. First, we investigate whether the subjective feeling that one's bi+ identity is invisible is associated with lower well-being among bi+ individuals. Second, we identify circumstances under which bi+ people experience lower versus higher subjective identity invisibility, focusing on the influential role of romantic relationships. We find that subjective visibility is positively associated with well-being, particularly for individuals whose bi+ identities are central to them. Relationship factors supporting a sense of perceived visibility included being in a same-gender relationship and having a gay, lesbian, or bi+ partner. This study contributes to efforts to identify conditions that promote bi+ people's well-being and highlights the importance of attending to the relationship dynamics of bi+ people, an understudied population.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.