Racial Inequality in Psychological Research: Trends of the Past and Recommendations for the Future

Abstract

Race plays an important role in how people think, develop, and behave. In the current article, we queried more than 26,000 empirical articles published between 1974 and 2018 in top-tier cognitive, developmental, and social psychology journals to document how often psychological research acknowledges this reality and to examine whether people who edit, write, and participate in the research are systematically connected. We note several findings. First, across the past five decades, psychological publications that highlight race have been rare, and although they have increased in developmental and social psychology, they have remained virtually nonexistent in cognitive psychology. Second, most publications have been edited by White editors, under which there have been significantly fewer publications that highlight race. Third, many of the publications that highlight race have been written by White authors who employed significantly fewer participants of color. In many cases, we document variation as a function of area and decade. We argue that systemic inequality exists within psychological research and that systemic changes are needed to ensure that psychological research benefits from diversity in editing, writing, and participation. To this end, and in the spirit of the field’s recent emphasis on metascience, we offer recommendations for journals and authors.

Psychological Science is Not Race Neutral

“…Psychological Science is Not Race Neutral: Comment on Roberts et al, (2020) "If psychological science is to tackle diverse questions from diverse perspectives, it must diversify." (Roberts, Bareket-Shavit, Dollins, Goldie, & Mortenson, 2020, p. 9) In Roberts et al, (2020), the authors marshal an impressive collection of evidence that describes the overwhelming Whiteness of psychological science. The work reveals that race scholarship is exceedingly rare in our field, and those who participate in it-including authors, editors, and participants-are all overwhelmingly categorized as White.…”

“…Ultimately, research on racial ignorance, threats to belonging, and the assumption of racial progress all suggest that racial inequality will continue to stand as a significant and sustained barrier in the study of cognitive, developmental, and social psychology. We end by highlighting promising recommendations made by Roberts et al, (2020) that call for our field to deeply and explicitly consider author, editor, and participant race in its research practices and organizational structure.…”

“…The magnitude of racial inequality described by Roberts et al, (2020) in psychological science was undoubtedly shocking to many readers. It likely engendered reactions that affirmed progressive values and a commitment to diversity-indeed, both tend to characterize higher Psychology is Not Race Neutral 8 education institutions.…”

“…This action also has the capacity reduce the lack of belonging experienced by scholars of color, who can see themselves and their experiences represented in the editorial boards and pages of journals. This Psychology is Not Race Neutral 10 goal may seem abstract, but Roberts' et al, (2020) provide a number of specific policy changes to reach it, including posting diversity statements, creating diversity task forces, releasing diversity numbers annually, and creating badges to distinguish publications that do not rely exclusively on WEIRD samples or research teams (much like those we already have that distinguish publications with preregistered studies or publicly available datasets).…”

The Expertise Paradox: Opportunities and Challenges of a Public Psychology Framework

“…An example of how the arbitrary, traditional view of expertise and power are detrimental to voices outside the central focus of academia can be found in debates from black, postcolonial scholars. Indeed, it has been postulated that black scholars' narratives are systematically disqualified as knowledge and are marginalised because their perspectives do not always fit with the dominant ideas largely written, edited, and published by the racially homogenous academy (Kilomba, 2012;Roberts, Bareket-Shavit, Dollins, Goldie, & Mortenson, 2020).…”