Editorial Synthesis for 2 in 2023: A Collaboration Between IARR’s Two Journals: Recognizing the Need for Greater Inclusivity in Relationship Science

Defining Intersectionality

Crenshaw (1989, 1991) first coined the term intersectionality; the theory and methods of intersectionality were inspired by Black feminist scholars and activists. Crenshaw (1991) highlighted how ignoring difference within groups, particularly Black women, contributed to tension among groups, furthering issues to address violence against women. Crenshaw (1991) noted “although racism and sexism readily intersect in the lives of real people, they seldom do in feminist and antiracist practices” (p. 1242) and how the objective of intersectionality was to explore the race and gender dimensions of violence against women of color. For the purpose of this special issue, the Editors (hereafter we) drew upon Crenshaw’s seminal work and the work of others in presenting a definition of intersectionality for each of the authors to consider addressing in their reviews (e.g., Cook & Few-Demo, 2021; Hancock, 2007).

In its broadest sense, intersectionality is the central focus on (a) how multiply marginalized social identities have been historically oppressed and (b) how systems of power, oppression, and privilege construct, reproduce, and sustain those multiply marginalized social identities (Cooke & Few-Demo, 2021; Crenshaw, 1989, 1991; Few-Demo, 2014). That is, intersectionality is a critical framework that emphasizes how power operates and creates variability in privileges and oppression within interactive processes that occur between, within, and among social groups, institutions, cultural ideologies, and social practices (Cooke & Few-Demo, 2021). Intersectionality brings to light the experiences of those who carry multiple marginalized identities that have been traditionally oppressed (e.g., the intersection of race, ethnicity, class, gender identity, sexual orientation, national status, ability status, and/or age; Collins & Bilge, 2016; Hancock, 2007) to the center of the analysis without excluding the voices of subgroups within the targeted groups studied (Few-Demo, 2014). The multiple marginalizations of identity across institutional and societal levels creates social and political stratification, which requires more far-reaching policy solutions (Hancock, 2007). As a critical theory, intersectionality urges researchers to move beyond examinations of diverse populations to instead consider how systems of power, privilege, and oppression guide interpretation of findings and how these results can be used to enact social change toward equity (Choo & Ferree, 2010; Few-Demo & Allen, 2020).

Taken together, grounded in Crenshaw’s (1989, 1991) definition of intersectionality, and drawing from questions posed by Cole (2009) in the consideration of intersectionally-inspired research, authors for this special issue were asked to apply an intersectional lens in their systematic review of literature from the past 20 years (1992–2022) to address the following questions: (1) from whose vantage point is the research being conducted, (2) what types of questions are valued, and (3) who is included in the research versus who is being left out/whose voices are missing. All manuscripts included in the special issue followed the PRISMA guidelines (Prisma, n.d.) to answer the three above questions; how authors chose to answer the questions was to their discretion.

A Summary of the Papers in this Special Issue

We introduce and describe each of the papers in this special issue in alphabetical order by the last name of each first author across the two journals.

Curran et al. (PR) reviewed relational sacrifices, defined as instances in which individuals who encounter a conflict of interest (or a noncorrespondent outcome) between themselves and their relational partners can choose to sacrifice, or depart from their immediate interest to promote the partner’s interests (Kelley, 1979) in 115 studies. To address sample demographics (or whose voices and vantage points are represented in the research), the authors adapted a coding scheme by Few-Demo et al. (2016) with codes ranging from 1 (exclusion/absence) to 5 (focus on context-relevant experiences for underrepresented samples). For various sample demographics (e.g., the samples’ disability status, education/income/SES, gender differences explored, and beyond gender binaries), the most common code was that of exclusion/absence (code of 1). In coding study designs and conceptual dimensions of sacrifice, a majority of the studies reviewed used quantitative and close-ended measures emphasizing behavioral frequency of sacrifice. To move toward a more inclusive scholarship on relational sacrifices, the authors encourage future researchers to ask about various sample demographics, question whether and how transformed motives in the form of relational sacrifice are considered specific to the longevity and commitment of the relationship, question the need for dyadic data, and encourage connections to authors’ own positionality to determine how to move toward data collection efforts in which they are asking different questions about all (vs. select) families.

Floyd et al. (PR) reviewed affectionate communication, defined as an individual’s intentional and overt enactment or expression of feelings of closeness, care, and fondness for another (Floyd & Morman, 1998), health, and relationships in 86 articles. The authors noted that of the 86 articles reviewed, many relied heavily on bioevolutionary perspectives, which do not naturally draw attention to the effects of social identities and their unique impacts on relational experiences. The bioevolutionary nature of affectionate communication theories may have introduced a blind spot in the literature preventing the influence of social identities from being adjudicated, which is problematic from both the perspective of social justice and discovery. The authors conclude that there is no explicit or implicit attention to intersectionality (unique effects of two or more social identities interacting) in the existing research on affectionate communication and health, and that U.S. Americans, women, younger individuals, White individuals, and students are overrepresented in research samples.

Galovan et al. (PR) reviewed the longitudinal study of romantic close relationships in 457 articles. The authors found that most longitudinal couple relationships research was quantitative, relies on self-report approaches from American couples in the early-to-middle years of their relationships, concentrates more on negative aspects of relationships than positive aspects, and takes a communication-satisfaction paradigm in studying couples. The authors discuss a clear need to increase the use of methodologies beyond self-report, conduct more studies that have within-group minority, older adult, culturally diverse, and/or context-specific samples to explore the diversity of relationships, and fully consider both strengths and positive processes in relationships as well as the challenges couples experience. The authors discuss how, for example, 16% of the articles they coded examined how aspects of couples' relationships were connected to various contexts, including those of privilege, oppression, culture, or power. Many articles examined differences in relational processes or quality by sociodemographic factors without a clear discussion of how or why this mattered. The authors acknowledge the lags in longitudinal, dyadic assessments of how these, and other interlocking systems of oppression, create a unique context for romantic couples. They urge scholars to carry out theoretically grounded assessments of intersectional dynamics using within-group samples and— rather than solely looking at main effects —to pursue questions that examine how multiple systems of oppression intersect to influence individuals and their relationships.

Knobloch et al. (JSPR) reviewed relationship maintenance, defined as partner behaviors that preserve or enhance the relationship (Ogolsky & Monk, 2020), among military couples in 81 relevant journal articles representing 62 unique samples. For sample demographics, most participants were married (96.8%), non-Hispanic White (77.2%), and only one same-sex relationship was represented. The study metrics showed that 62.9% gathered data directly from military personnel, and of those studies, 10.9% of participants were female service members and 89.1% were male service members. For methods, most studies were focused on the U.S. military (88.7%), recruited convenience samples (83.9%), and used quantitative methods (54.8%). Longitudinal designs comprised 30.6% of the studies. The authors interpret their quantitative synthesis, summarize major themes from their narrative synthesis (e.g., disclosure and protective buffering; dyadic coping), and describe interventions targeting relationship maintenance available to military couples. The authors also discuss how, for example, the overwhelming U.S. centric nature of the literature underscores the lack of attention to global perspectives and corresponding systems of power and how such limited consideration of worldwide military service hinders the investigation of relationship maintenance among military couples at the nexus of race, class, gender, age, sexual orientation, ability, or any other layer of social identity.

Machia et al. (PR) reviewed relationship dissolution research in 207 studies. Relationship dissolution was characterized as stages of discord and distancing, leading to the possible severing of ties, as well as ghosting or the consequences of not communicating intentions such as dissolution or breakup to a romantic partner (Koessler et al., 2019; Sprecher & Fehr, 1998). The most common methodological approach to studying breakups was self-report (92%) in which relationships were tracked over time (72%) and breakups were treated as an outcome variable (79%). The authors suggest that these results show that most research on dissolution has focused on predictors of it, rather than processes required to uncouple and circumstances surrounding the breakup itself. Although 61% of the samples were representative of the nations, regions, or localities in which the studies were conducted, samples still tended to be disproportionately comprised of young, White individuals from Western countries. The authors discuss how conducting intersectionality-relevant studies could be accomplished either by obtaining large probability samples (perhaps oversampling from underrepresented groups) to reach people with different combinations of statuses or purposively sampling individuals with patterns of intersectionality of interest to the researcher.

Ogolsky and Stafford (PR) examined romantic relationship maintenance behaviors in 198 articles. The authors note the difficulty of defining relationship maintenance given how scholars have previously defined the term as either as a stage (stability) or the process of sustaining such a state (e.g., Dindia & Canary, 1993; Stafford, 1994). Such confusion led to the authors’ decision to not include or exclude articles on the basis of their definition(s) of relationship maintenance. For sample demographics, the average study sample size was 277 and average age was 28. Most participants were White (78%), female (62%), and consisted of samples of college students (50%). Most studies did not explicitly ask about gender identity (91%) or sexual orientation (56%). For methods, dyadic data and longitudinal designs were limited (23% and 18%, respectively). These data bring to light that most of what is known about relationship maintenance includes relatively homogenous samples, who have responded to cross-sectional data surveys. Further, a large percentage of the studies reviewed did not explicitly report on variables such as gender identity or sexual orientation. While the authors acknowledge much of the research on relational maintenance has not been intersectional, they acknowledge one study by Reiter and Gee (2008), in which interfaith and intercultural relationships among adolescents and early adults were examined. These authors, while using a comparison approach, made a step in the direction of intersectionality engaging with multiple social positions in a single study.

Pollitt et al. (PR) reviewed LGBTQ-inclusive research in 2181 manuscripts published in JSPR and PR between 2002 and 2021. The authors specified that LGBTQ + relationships included at least one sexual minority (those who have a non-heterosexual identity and/or experience romantic/sexual attraction and/or behavior) or gender diverse (those who have a gender identity or expression that is different from their sex assigned at birth) individual. From the reviewed 92 articles, the overwhelming majority (85.8%) did not acknowledge LGBTQ + relationships; however, the authors noted there have been improvements compared to past research in retaining LGBTQ + participants within a data set when they were present. Acknowledging intersectionality, the authors note how LGBTQ + experiences likely vary greatly due to race and ethnicity. Although 76% of the manuscripts reported the race/ethnicity of participants, the reviewed articles did not consistently analyze the role of race and racism in LGBTQ + relationships in ways that would allow for meaningful conclusions about how experiences of marginalization may (or may not) vary as a function of race and ethnicity. Research focused on LGBTQ + relationships has typically explored relationship functioning (e.g., social support, commitment) and its stigma-based correlates (e.g., discrimination, concealment) among same-sex couples. However, there is a paucity of research on the relationships of underrepresented LGBTQ + people, including bisexual, transgender, and nonbinary people, LGBTQ + people of color, and LGBTQ + people living outside the U.S. The authors also remind readers that access to LGBTQ + civil rights continue to vary widely around the globe, with many countries still criminalizing homosexuality, underscoring how the best routes to supporting international colleagues in their pursuit of human rights while allowing those on the ground to dictate the most culturally appropriate ways of navigating changing attitudes and laws. Importantly, the authors note that the scholarship reviewed was limited to research published in JSPR and PR, which undoubtedly has its limitations.

Randall et al. (JSPR) examined romantic couples’ experience of stress, support, and coping. Given the breadth and depth of the literature, the authors chose to focus their review on research that included both individual and dyadic data, included research questions that referred to at least two intersecting demographic variables, and included relationship quality, broadly defined, as the outcome variable. A total of 56 manuscripts met the inclusion criteria above. Following an adapted version of the coding scheme by Williamson et al. (2022), along with an author survey to first authors of the included manuscripts, they found a majority of research conducted on this topic was from first authors who identify as female/cisgender female, heterosexual, White, from the U.S., with English as their primary language. Specific to the articles reviewed, samples were largely from Canada and the U.S., and although included articles needed to examine two aspects of identity, nearly half examined these independently. Ignoring aspects of identity and their intersection leaves the question of what is understood about how couples experience and cope with stress; more importantly, how our identities shape experiences and perceptions of stress, how the stress is communicated to others, and how support is perceived and received. The authors conclude with recommendations for applying Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) ecological systems theory to facilitate understanding of how different demographic factors (e.g., age, gender identity, sexual orientation, racial/ethnic background, religious affiliation, ability status, educational level, family form, etc.) may shape couples’ experiences of stress and coping.

Totenhagen et al. (JSPR) examined research on daily stress and romantic relationship quality in 23 articles. The authors included manuscripts whose methodological focus was specific to measuring stress repeatedly in their natural environment (e.g., daily diary methods). Applying an in-depth coding scheme, the authors found all manuscripts applied a quantitative approach, using largely dyadic sampling. Additionally, authors often applied theoretical perspectives, such as interdependence theory, which do not acknowledge how context and identity might shape the types of daily stressors experienced and how they are associated with relationship quality. Further, although studies often included participants from different age groups, races, and social classes, minority and underserved identities were under-represented in these samples. The authors urge future researchers studying daily stress to consider supplementing traditional approaches with frameworks and methodologies which center the role of context and identity to examine diversity in the experiences of daily stress and emphasize existing social structures that may explain inequalities.

Weiser et al. (JSPR) examined infidelity in 162 articles. These authors found that while a variety of themes emerged (i.e., individual, interpersonal, and contextual predictors; outcomes and reactions; beliefs and attitudes; prevalence; and conceptualization), they also found relatively homogeneity in the sampling, methods, and types of questions asked. For example, they reported that the infidelity literature primarily utilized participants who are White, heterosexual, cisgender individuals who reside in Canada or the U.S., and that researchers were limited in information they provided about participants’ identities so in most articles it was difficult to assess many dimensions of identity. The authors argue the importance of taking into consideration participants’ sociohistorical context. That is, scholars using an intersectional framework could help explain participants’ relationship experiences in the context of systems of sexism, racism, heterosexism, cissexism, classism, etc., in conjunction with individual and interpersonal factors.

Themes across The Reviews and Observations During the Review Process

First, all authors noted the lack of diversity or inclusivity that emerged from their specific reviews. While authors could decide which sample demographics to highlight in their review, in instances where they were included similar patterns emerged, and those patterns were often in the form of exclusion (e.g., gender identity was not asked in 91% of the studies of relationship maintenance by Ogolsky and Stafford; gender identity – called beyond gender binaries – was not asked in 94.78% of the studies of relational sacrifices by Curran et al.). All authors called for future research to move beyond the oversampling of those who are White, university students, from the U.S., heterosexual, or female (for military samples, these were dominated by men). As for methods, many authors noted that the studies were largely quantitative versus qualitative, cross-sectional, or with data coming from surveys.

Second, during the review process, themes from the reviewers were that (a) diverse samples were not the same as a study being intersectional, (b) intersectionality requires authors to write from the lens of multiply marginalized social identities that have been historically oppressed, and (c) connections to historical and social contexts were often missing. Specific to (a), the reviewers encouraged authors to distinguish between a diversity lens versus an intersectional lens. For example, Knobloch et al. inserted specific language into their discussion section to differentiate questions of diversity from questions of intersectionality. These distinctions emphasized how their coding data showed a lack of diversity in samples. Applying an intersectional lens was more difficult given the few to nonexistent studies with research questions grounded in intersectionality, which was mentioned by several authors (e.g., Floyd et al., Randall et al., Weiser et al.). Rather, to point (b), it was much easier for authors to write about identities and patterns that were additive, unitary, or multiple or multiplicative (see Hancock, 2007).

Several authors noted in their positionality statements that their training was focused in quantitative methods, and as such it may have made sense to use moderation (interacting constructs) in a statistical analysis to achieve the goal of making research intersectional. Yet, as noted by intersectionality scholars (Cole, 2009; Few-Demo, 2014; Hancock, 2007), statistical moderation of different demographics (e.g., gender and race) does not make a study intersectional. While there is much research that is qualitative, others (e.g., Cole, 2009; Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016; Few-Demo, 2014; Lewis et al., 2017; Galupo & Orphanidys, 2022; Sissoko et al., in press; Toomey, 2018) have provided quantitative empirical examples to examine multiply marginalized social identities that have been historically oppressed.

Authors also offered an explanation as to why there were a limited number of studies that were quantitative and intersectional. For example, Pollitt et al. discussed how while gender differences are often explored in LGBTQ + relationships research, doing so can become challenging, especially for scholars working with smaller samples. That is, once researchers include variables that may interact with sexual identity, relationship type, or gender, it may be difficult for the average researcher to recruit the samples needed for more sophisticated research designs that take into consideration multiple demographic variables.

To point (c), connections to social and historical contexts were often missing. Given discussions about power and oppression, for examples, topics need to be explored outside of binary views of gender, which include but are not limited to gender-based oppression, heteronormativity, and race, in addition to tenets specific to the review topics. This additional exploration of social and historical contexts could help to provide data allowing more intersectionality-informed interpretations of findings about for whom and under what conditions the study topics are beneficial, as embedded within systemic contexts. As a first example, consider Weiser et al. who wrote how when ethnic/racial differences were found in studies of infidelity, historical and social contexts were not provided by the authors of these articles in the review to explain why such differences may occur due to racial and gender oppression, limiting intersectional analysis. As a second example, Totenhagen et al. underscored the need to transcend the compensatory addition of minoritized voices in research, such that it was insufficient to include a small number of minoritized participants and then generalize findings across majority samples. Instead, per Totenhagen et al., there is justification to investigate similarities and differences within samples.

Third, several authors discussed how the theories used to ground the research questions often overlooked social identities and their intersection. While intersectionality is a framework that may not normally be used on its own, applying an intersectional lens in conjunction with previously tested theories and/or frameworks (e.g., Few-Demo et al., 2016) could be an opportunity to expand curriculum and/or research efforts that give preference to one theoretical orientation over another. As one example, Floyd et al. discussed how most of the theories in their review specific to affectionate communication, health, and relationships were bioevolutionary in nature, and how a bioevolutionary theory does not draw attention to the effects of social identities. Weiser et al. also discuss hypothetical infidelity scenarios from an evolutionary psychology framing, and how studies using an evolutionary lens often reinforce what the authors describe as hegemonic systems of gender by advancing biological essentialism and engaging in discourses which normalize men’s greater sexual freedom and power rather than applying a critical social contextual framing. Other theories – such as interdependence theory, discussed by Curran et al. (relational sacrifices) and Totenhagen et al. (daily hassles and relationship quality) – also received further examination. Thus, the consideration of already learned theories (e.g., interdependence theory) as paired with intersectionality would allow researchers to reevaluate questions such as those posed to the scholars for this special issue (e.g., what types of questions are valued?) and may help to strengthen samples and methods so that research can focus on more diverse and intersectional populations and questions.

Fourth, positionality is something that more authors can engage in as part of their research endeavors. All authors were asked to include positionality statements so that it was clear to readers the lens through which the researchers were viewing and making decisions about the review process and patterns discussed. As written by Ogolsky and Stafford, “We offer these positionality statements to recognize and own our biases and to acknowledge that we as scholars have contributed to many of the issues we outline in the remainder of this review. Thus, we echo Allen's (2000) argument that by making our own “ideologies available for others' scrutiny…it is easier to judge the merit of what [we] say” (p. 9).” While often seen in qualitative work (Allen, 2023; Goldberg & Allen, 2015), positionality is also a recommendation for quantitative studies (Curran & Randall, 2021; Roberts et al., 2020). By including positionality statements, authors in the special issues shared identities that shaped their scholarship, which included but was not limited to training, discipline, geographical location, and experience (or lack thereof) with the topic.

Fifth – as also connected to positionality – the review process may have been an exercise in the consideration of “family privilege.” Here, family privilege is defined as the benefits, often invisible and unacknowledged, that one receives by belonging to family systems long upheld as superior to others (Letiecq, 2019, p. 398). It is possible that the authors’ family privileges intersected with other privileges, such as White privilege and heteronormativity, to uphold and sustain what has been called “Standard North American supremacy” in family science and in our society (Letiecq, 2019, p. 399). Connected to intersectionality, locating family privilege within an intersectional matrix of domination and oppression (such as the one described by Collins, 1990) is necessary as it redirects the focus in asking new research questions. For example, given the interlocking patterns of privilege, oppression, and marginalization in which all groups possess varying amounts of privilege and disadvantage (Letiecq, 2019 referring to Collins, 1990), reframing future examinations of the constructs reviewed could include questions as to who may be an oppressor, a member of an oppressed group, or simultaneously an oppressor and someone who is oppressed (Letiecq, 2019). Indeed, the positionality for both the authors and the Editors may also have shaped the focus on examining topics specific to romantic relationships, compared to other social relationships. That is, authors initially sought to identify overly-simplistic dichotomies by coding and describing research over 20 years, yet at the same time, authors also recognized that their reviews illuminated their own areas for growth.

Still connected to family privilege is that focusing only on romantic relationships – which was a theme across the reviews – neglects the role of other relevant close relationships in peoples’ lives, particularly for single individuals, and for those for whose families or families of choice are central (Dewaele et al., 2011; Hostetler, 2012; Moorman, 2020). For example, consider the reviews by Galovan et al. and Machia et al.; these authors were asked by the Editors to focus on the longitudinal study of romantic relationships (Galovan et al.) and relationship dissolution (Machia et al.). For Galovan et al., they discussed how longitudinal quantitative research has a privileged place in the field, as only 1.8% of published articles in their review were qualitative studies. For Machia et al., their review was not limited to only longitudinal studies, but these authors found that the use of longitudinal methods was pronounced in their review (72%), which as they explain, makes sense “as breakup, perhaps more than other topics within relationship science, lends itself to longitudinal follow-ups to detect dissolution and what predicts this outcome” (p. 13).

Sixth, noting all the patterns and limitations above, here is how authors tried to incorporate intersectionality into their reviews. In setting up their coding schemes for the reviews, some authors – Curran et al., Randall et al., and Totenhagen et al. – adapted ideas from coding systems or frameworks proposed by others, such as those by Few-Demo et al. (2016) and Williamson et al. (2022). Adapted is key here, though, as coding systems or frameworks specific to intersectionality could not directly be used by the special issue authors as so few articles included in the systematic reviews started from the lens of intersectionality.

Other authors included aspects of intersectionality as part of their review. Galovan et al. included articles that focused on same-gender couples, the effects of social prejudice, and minority within-group designs rather than comparative between-group analyzes and made note of articles that considered multiple social locations and/or identities connected to resources, power, privilege, or oppression. Floyd et al. (1) conducted a text-search feature, searching for the terms intersectional, intersectionality, and intersectionalist; (2) searched for Crenshaw as an author in the reference list, (3) extracted all hypotheses and research questions from the studies to see if hypotheses or questions posed were specific to intersectionality; and (4) examined interactions in which the independent variables were two or more identity-related variables and the dependent variable was a measure of the association between affectionate behavior and health (e.g., if an interaction found that hugging and stress recovery were more strongly correlated for people who identify as Black and gay than for Black people in general or for gay people in general, this would offer some empirical support for the intersection of identities accounts for unique variance). The authors found no matches/no evidence for any of these tests.

Pollitt et al., as part of their research questions, asked how research included and explored the intersectional experiences of LGBTQ + people. In noting the patterns of intersectionality in LGBTQ + -relevant manuscripts (defined as how identities intersect to influence lived experiences), Pollitt et al. noted that there were few manuscripts published in JSPR and PR in the past 20 years that examined intersectional aspects, with respect to race/ethnicity and culture. They also noted that attention was needed specific to larger socio-political contexts, as access to LGBTQ + civil rights continues to vary widely around the globe, with many countries still criminalizing homosexuality. Pollitt et al. highlighted one article – by Patron (2021) – in which Patron examined the intersection between sexual identity, race, and cultural experiences, as an illustration for how relationship researchers could consider how different cultural conceptions of family and support structures, including the role of chosen family and broader cultural communities, may shape queer people’s experiences. Not covered by Pollitt et al. in their review, but as relevant to this section of intersectionality and sexual orientation, is the following: The study of Black LGBT health and the intersection of race, gender, and sexual orientation (Follins & Lassiter, 2017), family socialization for racism and heterosexism for Latinx sexual minority adolescents and young adults (Toomey et al., 2018), Latinx sexual minority youth adjustment in the context of discrimination and internalized homonegativity and with the consideration of cultural orientation (Anhalt et al., 2020), sexual and ethnic–racial identity commitment, conflicts in allegiances, and mental health for LGB racial and ethnic minority adults (Santos & VanDaalen, 2016), and how queer and intersectional lenses could be used to understand how young people make sense of heteronormativity (defined as the presumption and privileging of heterosexuality) in discussions of relationships, marriage, and parenthood (Pollitt et al., 2021).

For other authors, the application of intersectionality was mentioned in the discussion as an important area for future research. Knobloch et al. noted the need to have a greater reliance on theory, transcend interdisciplinary perspectives, and focus on issues of diversity and intersectionality. Machia et al. suggested how future studies on relationship dissolution could implement an interdisciplinary approach to understanding relationship dissolution, including the use of qualitative methods to gain a greater understanding on the process and associated outcomes of relationship dissolution. Ogolsky and Stafford encouraged authors to challenge existing assumptions and pay more attention to the intersection of identities and the context to which they exit. Weiser et al., specific to infidelity, discussed the need to discuss participants’ sociohistorical contexts (e.g., how using an intersectional framework could help explain participants’ relationship experiences in the context of systems such as racism or sexism, in conjunction with individual and interpersonal factors). For example, citing a study by Utley (2011), Weiser et al. discussed, how because of systemic racism, both Black women and men contend with racialized stereotypes about hypersexuality, yet Black women also need to contend with gendered narratives about maintaining families in the absence of available Black men per the study by Utley (2011).

In sum, as the Editors of this special issue, we asked 10 sets of authors to apply an intersectional lens in their systematic review of literature from the past 20 years (1992–2022) and to answer these three questions: (1) from whose vantage point is the research being conducted, (2) what types of questions are valued, and (3) who is included in the research versus who is being left out/whose voices are missing. Authors highlighted many of the same patterns wherein most of the studies included samples from the U.S., were White, female, or heterosexual; however, military samples were dominated by men. The methods employed were largely quantitative, cross-sectional, or with data coming from surveys. As Editors, we hope that these reviews and this editorial synthesis are useful for readers and inspire others to learn more about intersectionality and to use intersectionality, along with existing theories, to continue to gain more knowledge to further advance the field. Notably, we learned much from the initial creation of the idea to its fruition, and during the review process – from the authors, reviewers, and one another – about intersectionality.

How Relationship Science Can Benefit From the Lens of Intersectionality

Several reviews and special issues specific to intersectionality inspired us to put together this special issue. These include, but are not limited to the following: Cole, 2009; Few-Demo, 2014; Moradi & Grzanka, 2017; Santos & Toomey, 2018. (Although not about intersectionality, the examination by Roberts et al. (2020) of racial inequality in psychological research was also very central to us putting together this special issue). We refer readers to these authors and their reviews to learn more about intersectionality and why we need this lens in our field. From the aforementioned authors and reviews, we share the following points:

(1) We can all be allies in learning more about and using intersectionality in our research. Being an ally also has the likely benefit of relieving burden on those who are already invested in and use the lens of intersectionality. Per Moradi and Grzanka (2017), ‘responsible stewardship of intersectionality is a responsibility of all scholars, not just “diversity” scholars, and the call to action in this article is to the collective community of people engaged in research, teaching, practice, and/or activism’ (p. 501).