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

Article Selection

We queried every article published in Cognition (n = 2,862), Cognitive Psychology (n = 827), Child Development (n = 5,961), Developmental Psychology (n = 5,162), the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (n = 7,432), and Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin (n = 4,136) between the years of 1974 and 2018, which yielded data from 26,380 publications. We queried two journals within each area to permit generalizations across areas (cognitive, developmental, social), and we selected these journals because they have been in continual publication over the past five decades and are among the most prestigious in their subfields.

First, authors C. Bareket-Shavit and F. A. Dollins independently queried 20% of the journal issues to reliably determine how many publications were empirical with human participants (i.e., commentaries, reviews, meta-analyses, methodological articles, and theoretical publications were excluded; Fleiss’s κ = .92); disagreements were resolved by discussion. This entailed reading at least the title and abstract of each publication. C. Bareket-Shavit and F. A. Dollins then queried the remaining 80% of the journal issues and tallied how many publications were empirical with human subjects, resulting in 26,380 publications. For each, they recorded the name and contact information of the editors, including the editors in chief, associate editors, senior editors, and consulting editors.

Second, authors S. O. Roberts and C. Bareket-Shavit independently queried 20% of the journal issues to reliably determine which empirical publications with human participants explicitly highlighted race in the title, abstract, or both (e.g., Asian, Black, White, racial categories, racial identity, racial segregation, racial stereotyping, racial inequality; Fleiss’s κ = .96); disagreements were resolved by discussion. These included a variety of publication types, including those with all-White samples that focused on race-related outcomes (e.g., the origins of symbolic racism; Sears & Henry, 2003) or did not focus on race-related outcomes (e.g., personality and drug use; Brook, Whiteman, Gordon, & Brook, 1986), those with racially diverse samples that focused on race-related outcomes (e.g., cooperation in interracial groups; Blanchard, Adelman, & Cook, 1975) or did not focus on race-related outcomes (e.g., detecting and recognizing geometric figures; Stein & Mandler, 1975), and those with samples composed completely of persons of color that did focus on race-related outcomes (e.g., ethnic socialization; Hu, Zhou, & Lee, 2017) or did not focus on race-related outcomes (e.g., pretend play; McLoyd, 1980). S. O. Roberts and C. Bareket-Shavit then queried the remaining 80% of the journal issues and downloaded the publications for which at least one study had been performed in the United States and that highlighted race in the title or abstract, resulting in 1,511 articles. ¹

Third, authors F. A. Dollins and P. D. Goldie independently coded 20% of the downloaded publications to reliably code participant information, including the total sample size (Fleiss’s κ = .80) and the number of White participants (Fleiss’s κ = .85), participants of color (Fleiss’s κ = .84), and unspecified participants (Fleiss’s κ = .65); disagreements were resolved by discussion. Participant information was coded after data exclusions unless data exclusions were not specified. In cases in which there were multiple studies with only a subset focusing on race, only those subsets were coded. F. A. Dollins and P. D. Goldie then coded the remaining 80% of the publications. For each publication, they also recorded the journal name, article title, publication year, and the name, contact information, and affiliation of the first author.

Fourth, authors C. Bareket-Shavit, F. A. Dollins, and P. D. Goldie coded the perceived race (−1 = White, 1 = POCs) of the editors in chief, editorial board members, and authors. Specifically, C. Bareket-Shavit and F. A. Dollins coded the perceived race of 20% of unique editors in chief (Cohen’s κ = .77), C. Bareket-Shavit and P. D. Goldie coded the perceived race of 20% of the editorial board members (Cohen’s κ = .80), and C. Bareket-Shavit and F. A. Dollins coded the perceived race of 20% of the first authors (Cohen’s κ = .91); disagreements were resolved by discussion. Each pair of researchers then split and coded the perceived race of the remaining persons. To do so, we searched and categorized the online images of the editors and authors (e.g., via a faculty page; for a similar methodology, see Berry, 2006). We also contacted via e-mail all living editors and authors for whom we had contact information (n = 2,824), asking them to provide their self-identified racial identity (25% response rate). We compared those self-report data with our own categorizations and confirmed that our categorizations had high predictive validity (Cohen’s κ = .85). We updated all inaccurate categorizations in response to the self-report data. We did not code the race of seven editors in chief, 238 editorial board members, and 152 authors who were unidentifiable because they (a) were deceased or had retired, (b) had no images online, (c) did not respond to our survey, (d) refused to complete the survey, or (e) had identities that were ambiguous and therefore not easily classifiable.

In line with guidelines from the institutional review board, editors and authors were promised that their disclosed identities would not be made public. In addition, some editors and authors explicitly requested that their responses remain private, and the editors and authors we were unable to contact were not able, of course, to consent to us making their racial identities public. For these reasons, only an anonymized version of the data set has been made available online (https://osf.io/ykjrd/files/). Researchers interested in the complete data set should contact S. O. Roberts.

How Often Does Psychology Publish Research That Highlights Race?

From the 1970s to the 2010s, only 5% of publications highlighted race (1,511 of 26,380). In cognitive psychology, fewer than 1% of publications highlighted race (14 of 3,689), compared with 8% in developmental psychology (878 of 11,123) and 5% in social psychology (619 of 11,568). We ran a linear regression model with area (cognitive, developmental, social), decade (standardized), and the interaction between these two variables as predictors and the proportion of publications that highlighted race as the dependent variable (i.e., within each year, the number of publications that highlighted race of all publications). ² Publications that highlighted race were more common in developmental psychology than in social psychology, β = 0.03, SE = 0.01, t = 6.11, p < .001, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [0.02, 0.04], more common in developmental psychology than in cognitive psychology, β = 0.08, SE = 0.01, t = 15.10, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.07, 0.09], and more common in social psychology than in cognitive psychology, β = 0.05, SE = 0.01, t = 11.17, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.06].

As shown in Figure 1, publication rates changed over time but only within developmental and social psychology. Since the 1970s, there have been virtually no cognitive psychology publications that highlighted race, from 0% of all publications in the 1970s to 0.002% of all publications in the 2010s, β < 0.01, SE < 0.01, t = 1.44, p = .15, 95% CI = [−0.01, 0.01]. In contrast, the number of such publications increased in developmental psychology, from 5% in the 1970s to 12% in the 2010s, β = 0.03, SE = 0.01, t = 7.97, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.04], and increased in social psychology, from 4% in the 1970s to 7% in the 2010s, β = 0.02, SE = 0.01, t = 5.52, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.02].

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 1.

Proportion of publications that highlighted race across five decades of publications in cognitive, developmental, and social psychology.

Thus, across the past five decades of psychological research, few publications have highlighted the important role of race in human psychology, and virtually none have done so in cognitive psychology. One might expect psychological science to have increased its focus on race from the 1970s (i.e., at the conclusion of legally mandated racial segregation) to the 2010s (i.e., during the era of Barack Obama). Indeed, this was true for developmental and social psychology but not for cognitive psychology. Why?

One reason might be that cognitive psychologists believe they are pursuing race-neutral, universal phenomena. Yet a handful of studies published in top-tier cognitive journals have revealed that cognitive processes, such as auditory processing, categorization, and memorization, do indeed vary as a function of racialized experiences (e.g., racial diversity, segregation, inequality; Perrachione et al., 2010; Quinn et al., 2019; Wang, 2019). Another reason might be to avoid the notion that racial differences reflect inherent differences. Yet as mentioned previously, racial differences reflect differences in racialized experiences. To this point, other scholars have argued that any psychological study of race not only must describe racial differences but also must identify the social and cultural processes that explain those differences (Betancourt & López, 1993; McLoyd, 1990; Zuckerman, 1990). Studies that focus only on racial differences can be problematic in that they (a) have historically adopted a deficit-based approach focused on what POCs lack rather than what they have, effectively undermining researchers’ ability to develop theories that acknowledge human strengths stemming from social and cultural variation; (b) license the inference that POCs are abnormal, deficient, and incompetent compared with their White peers; (c) ignore within-group variation, which leaves the reader with little understanding of individual differences within populations of color; and (d) imply that the cause of racial differences is race rather than systemic and situational mechanisms (see McLoyd & Randolph, 1984). Our claim is not that every single psychological phenomenon varies as a function of race or that every single psychological publication needs to highlight the role of race in the topic at hand. Yet the reality is that racialized experiences shape how people think, develop, and behave. To dedicate no attention to this reality, in our view, is a disservice to psychological science, especially in the face of increasing racial diversity, segregation, and inequality.

Who Edits the Research That Highlights Race?

We considered first the editors in chief. In total, there were 60 unique editors in chief between 1974 and 2018, of whom 83% were White, 5% were POCs, and 12% were unidentifiable (publications from editors in chief whose race we were unable to code were excluded from subsequent analyses). Focusing on all of the queried publications for which we coded the race of the editor in chief, 93% of those publications (20,784 of 22,247) were edited by White editors in chief. Focusing within each area, as shown in Figure 2, we found that 100% of all publications in cognitive psychology (3,667 of 3,667), 89% of all publications in developmental psychology (9,184 of 10,300), and 96% of all publications in social psychology (7,933 of 8,280) were edited by White editors in chief. Focusing on the publications that highlighted race, 87% were edited by White editors in chief (1,119 of 1,284). Within each area, 100% of publications in cognitive psychology (14 of 14), 84% of publications in developmental psychology (707 of 837), and 92% of publications in social psychology (387 of 433) were edited by White editors in chief. To examine whether the editors’ race predicted the proportion of publications that highlighted race, we ran a mixed-effects linear regression model with editor-in-chief race (−1 = White, 1 = POC) as the predictor variable, individual editor in chief as a random intercept, and the proportion of publications that highlighted race as the dependent variable. We did not examine variation across decade or area given that there were few editors in chief of color across these variables. When editors in chief were White, 4% of all publications highlighted race, and when editors in chief were POCs, this proportion almost tripled to 11%, β = 0.06, SE = 0.02, t = 2.45, p = .018, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.10].

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 2.

Proportion of editors in chief who were people of color or White for all publications (top) and for the publications that highlighted race (bottom) across cognitive, developmental, and social psychological journals. Publications for which we were unable to code the race of the editor in chief are excluded.

We next examined racial diversity among the editorial-board members (i.e., associate editors, senior editors, consulting editors), which was important given that there have historically been few editors in chief of color and because editors in chief tend to invite members to the editorial boards. Because practices varied across journals (e.g., some made public only the names of the associate and consulting editors, others only the names of associate editors, and some did not archive this information at all), we focused on the racial diversity among the entire editorial boards, excluding the editor in chief, irrespective of board members’ particular role. We did not examine variation across decade or area given that these data were reported inconsistently, if at all, across the journals and sampled time frame. In total, we coded the race of 1,745 unique editorial board members, of whom 76% were White, 10% were POCs, and 14% were unidentifiable. To examine whether the race of the editor in chief predicted the racial diversity of the editorial board, we ran a mixed-effects linear regression model with editor race (−1 = White, 1 = POC) as the predictor variable, individual editor in chief as a random intercept, and the proportion of editorial board members who were POCs (standardized) as the predictor variable. When editors in chief were White, 6% of editorial board members were POCs, and when editors in chief were POCs, this proportion almost tripled to 17%, β = 0.10, SE = 0.07, t = 1.41, p = .17, 95% CI = [−0.04, 0.24]. Note that this difference was not statistically significant, probably because there were simply too few editors in chief of color and reported editorial boards to make stronger comparisons. To examine our key question of whether the racial diversity of the editorial board predicted the proportion of publications that highlighted race, we ran a linear regression model with the proportion of White editorial board members (standardized) as the predictor variable and the proportion of publications on race as the dependent variable. Indeed, the greater the proportion of White editorial board members, the lower the proportion of publications that highlighted race, β = −0.27, SE = 0.04, t = −7.06, p < .001, 95% CI = [−0.34, −0.19].

Thus, fewer publications that highlight the role of race in human psychology have been accepted and published by White editors than by editors of color. There may be two straightforward explanations for this: (a) White editors are less concerned or familiar with race, or (b) authors who study race may be more likely to submit their work to editors of color at specialty journals (Nzinga et al., 2018; Rowley & Camacho, 2015). On either account, these data highlight the need for racial diversity among psychology’s editors. Across five decades of research, two prestigious cognitive journals have never been under the auspices of a single editor in chief of color, unlike developmental and social psychology, although these two areas were also mostly edited by White editors.

Who Writes the Research That Highlights Race?

Among the publications that highlighted race, there were 1,093 unique first authors, of whom 63% were White, 23% were POCs, and 14% were unidentifiable (publications from authors whose races we were unable to code were excluded from subsequent analyses). We found that 69% of the publications in cognitive psychology (9 of 13), 71% of the publications in developmental psychology (548 of 773), and 72% of the publications on race in social psychology (398 of 551), were written by White authors. We next ran a logistic regression model with area (−1 = developmental, 1 = social), decade (standardized), and the interaction between these two variables as predictor variables and the race of the first author (−1 = White, 1 = POC) as the dependent variable. We excluded cognitive psychology from this model because of a lack of publications and authors of color in this area (but see Fig. 3), and we included the total number of publications within each decade as a covariate given that a higher proportion of authors of color in later years might simply reflect a higher number of publications. The proportion of authors of color increased (and the proportion of White authors decreased) over the past five decades, β = 0.79, SE = 0.31, z = 2.55, p = .01, 95% CI = [0.20, 1.41]; developmental psychology showed greater change than social psychology, β = −0.16, SE = 0.08, z = −2.05, p = .04, 95% CI = [−0.32, −0.01] (see Fig. 3).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 3.

Proportion of publications written by first authors who were White or persons of color across five decades of publications in cognitive, developmental, and social psychological journals. Note that we include here cognitive psychology for graphical purposes only because there were too few publications to draw firm conclusions.

Thus, across five decades of research, the majority of publications on race have been written by White authors, although less so over time. Why? One possibility is that research conducted by authors of color is simply of lower quality than research conducted by White authors and therefore less publishable in prestigious journals. If true, one would expect publications written by White authors to be cited more often than those written by authors of color. To test this post hoc explanation, we used Google Scholar to record the citation count for each downloaded publication as of March 2020 and found no significant difference between the citation counts of publications written by authors of color compared with those written by White authors. ³ Another possibility is that there are simply too few authors of color. If true, one might also expect authors of color to also be underrepresented in specialty journals. To test this post hoc explanation, we queried every publication in Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology between the years of 1995 and 2018 (the entire span of the journal’s publication history), which yielded data from 843 articles and 701 unique first authors, the majority of whom (53%) were authors of color (32% were White, and 15% were unidentifiable). Thus, the quality of the research and the quantity of the researchers do not explain why many of the most prestigious psychological publications on race have been published by White psychologists. We propose that another explanation for this is that the psychological publication process is no less reflective of racial inequality than most of society.

Who Participates in the Research That Highlights Race?

Among the publications that highlighted race, 42% of participants were White, 48% were POCs, and 10% were unspecified (participants whose race we were unable to code were excluded from subsequent analyses). In cognitive psychology, 48% of participants were White, and 53% were POCs. In developmental psychology, 35% of participants were White, and 62% were POCs. In social psychology, 66% of participants were White, and 34% were POCs. We ran linear regression models with author race (−1 = White, 1 = POC), area (−1 = developmental, 1 = social), decade (standardized), and the interactions among these three variables as predictor variables and the proportion of White participants or participants of color as the dependent variables. We excluded cognitive psychology from these analyses given the dearth of publications on race in this area (but see Fig. 4). White participants were more common in publications written by White authors (52% of participants) and less common in publications written by authors of color (35% of participants), β = −0.08, SE = 0.01, t = −6.28, p < .001, 95% CI = [−0.11, −0.06], and were more common in social psychology (66% of participants) and less common in developmental psychology (35% of participants), β = 0.16, SE = 0.01, t = 12.57, p < .001, 95% [0.13, 0.18]. Conversely, participants of color were more common in publications written by authors of color (65% of participants) and less common in publications written by White authors (48% of participants), β = 0.08, SE = 0.01, t = 6.12, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.06, 0.11], and more common in developmental psychology (65% of participants) and less common in social psychology (34% of participants), β = −0.15, SE = 0.01, t = −11.79, p < .001, 95% CI = [−0.18, −0.13].

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 4.

Proportion of participants who were persons of color, White, or unspecified across author race and journal. Note that because there were too few publications to draw firm conclusions, cognitive psychology is included here only for graphical purposes.

Critically, the race of the participants was predicted by the race and area of the author. White participants were most common in publications written by White social psychologists (69% of participants) and social psychologists of color (60% of participants), followed by White developmentalists (40% of participants) and developmentalists of color (19% of participants). Mean comparisons are as follows: White social psychologists compared with social psychologists of color, β = −0.01, SE = 0.02, t = −0.04, p = .97, 95% CI = [−0.04, 0.03]; White social psychologists compared with White developmentalists, β = 0.06, SE = 0.01, t = 5.09, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.09]; White social psychologists compared with developmentalists of color, β = −0.17, SE = 0.02, t = −8.90, p < .001, 95% CI = [−0.21, −0.13]; social psychologists of color compared with White developmentalists, β = 0.06, SE = 0.02, t = 3.55, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.10]; social psychologists of color compared with developmentalists of color, β = 0.18, SE = 0.02, t = 10.22, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.14, 0.21]; and White developmentalists compared with developmentalists of color, β = −0.10, SE = 0.02, t = −5.55, p < .001, 95% CI = [−0.14, −0.07]. Conversely, participants of color were most common in publications written by developmentalists of color (81% of participants), followed by White developmentalists (60% of participants), social psychologists of color (40% of participants), and White social psychologists (31% of participants; all mean comparisons, ps < .001).

We reason that this variation by author race occurs because authors of color are more invested in communities of color, more cognizant of the importance of racial diversity in participant recruitment, and less likely to rely on predominantly White convenience samples (see Nzinga et al., 2018), but why the area difference? One reason might be that developmental psychologists, compared with social psychologists, may be less likely to recruit participants via online platforms (e.g., Amazon’s Mechanical Turk), which have become increasingly popular over time and consist of mostly White samples (Berinsky, Huber, & Lenz, 2012; Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosline, 2011). If true, a simple solution would be to recruit diverse samples via those platforms (see, e.g., Roberts et al., 2020). Another reason might be that developmental psychologists have been more vocal about the importance of collaborating with racially diverse samples. Here are three examples:

Our data and these examples highlight the need for racial diversity in psychology’s leadership (see Fig. 2).

Note that in developmental psychology but not in social psychology, publications on race included more participants of color, and the proportion of participants of color increased over time. This increase is in many ways positive because it likely reflects (a) a greater attention to marginalized and hard-to-reach communities, (b) a greater willingness of those communities to participate in university research, (c) a greater investment in those communities by authors of color, and (d) an increasingly diverse society (Rowley & Camacho, 2015). Yet developmental psychology has limited knowledge about race-related issues among White participants (e.g., how White children learn about race and think about racial diversity). In recent years, U.S. society has seen an increase in race-related hate crimes, perpetrated mostly by White men (Eligon, 2018). Research in social psychology has revealed that this is often caused by fear of increasing racial diversity (Craig, Rucker, & Richeson, 2018), and by studying race with White children, developmental psychologists stand to reveal how this fear takes root across development. Simply put, race is not relevant only to children of color.

Moving Forward

We examined five decades of publications in cognitive, developmental, and social psychology to document the extent to which publications in these fields have highlighted the role of race in how humans think, develop, and behave, as well as when, where, by which authors and editors, and with which participants race has been given formal consideration.. Our research suggests that the psychological publication process is, understandably, subject to the same structural inequities that stratify the rest of society. Psychological research is mostly edited by White editors, under whom there have been fewer publications that highlight the important role of race in psychology. The few studies that did highlight race were written mostly by White authors, under whom there have been fewer participants of color. Thus, we document that the racial identities of individuals curating psychological research have clear implications for what and who is included in that research. Below, we contextualize our findings and propose concrete recommendations for how to meet the field’s stated goal of generating representative knowledge (Medin, 2017; Rad, Martingano, & Ginges, 2018).

Any experienced psychologist has surely noticed that psychologists of color are rarely in leadership positions. To give one historical example, the American Psychological Association (APA) was founded in 1892, but the first APA president who was a POC, Kenneth B. Clark, was not elected until 1971. It is known that diverse leadership transforms organizations by changing norms, creating initiatives, establishing new knowledge, and modeling potential career paths to underrepresented group members (Crisp & Turner, 2011; Jeanquart-Barone, 2004; Markus & Nurius, 1986; Milner & Howard, 2004; Rowley & Camacho, 2015). This is especially important given that the perspectives people hold, the ways in which they evaluate phenomena, and the questions that they ask are influenced by their social identities (Bourke, 2014; Cole, 2015; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; McGlothlin & Killen, 2010). If psychological science is to tackle diverse questions from diverse perspectives, it must diversify. This is not to presuppose that POCs necessarily hold worldviews that privilege POCs. Rather, in addition to benefitting from increased racial diversity, psychological science would also benefit from norms and communal agreements that center around diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Our view is that the lack of racial diversity in the psychological publication process is both biased and impractical. Regarding bias, we offer a thought experiment: A researcher of color is invested in dismantling racial inequality and therefore conducts research on race with samples of color. The researcher submits a manuscript for publication to a White editor at a top-tier journal. The manuscript is rejected by the editor, who feels unable or ill-equipped to handle it, perceives the researcher of color as less objective and credible than a White researcher, devalues or misunderstands the research, or criticizes the research for not including a White comparison sample. Subsequently, the researcher of color submits the work to an editor of color at a specialty journal who may be more invested in issues of race and more likely to publish the research. Ultimately, the research is published in a specialty journal that might be devalued by the author of color’s institution, peers, students, and tenure committees, leaving mainstream psychology with theories, methods, and findings that do not reflect a diversity of perspectives (for similar arguments, see Hall & Maramba, 2001; Nzinga et al., 2018; Rowley & Camacho, 2015).

Regarding practicality, the lack of racial diversity in psychology stands to leave the field unprepared for an increasingly diverse society. In 2015, most U.S. newborns were of color, and it was projected that by 2060, POCs will make up the majority of the U.S. population (Colby & Ortman, 2015). How are these persons to see themselves as future psychological scientists if they are not represented as editors, authors, or even participants? Three decades ago, Markus and Nurius (1986) demonstrated that individuals who do not see themselves represented in certain positions are less motivated to pursue similar roles for themselves. If psychological science is to be welcoming to future generations, it must diversify.

Extending the field’s recent emphasis on metascience, including decreasing false-positive findings and increasing replication efforts and open-science practices (John, Loewenstein, & Prelec, 2012; Makel, Plucker, & Hegarty, 2012; Pritschet, Powell, & Horne, 2016; Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011), we propose that reforms aimed at ensuring diversity, equity, and inclusion need to be embedded within our research. More formally stated, the informativeness and generalizability of psychological research depends on the values of the people who conduct that research. Just as data and methods need to be transparent, the people behind those data and methods need to be transparent. We propose five recommendations for journals and four for authors.

Concluding Thoughts

Our analysis was broad but limited. First, we examined publications from two top-tier journals within each area, although these journals are not representative of all journals. Future research is needed with other journals, both general (e.g., Psychological Science) and area specific (e.g., Journal of Cognition and Development). Second, we focused our analysis on psychology journals, but future research could consider diversity among funding agencies. To truly diversify psychological science, it is important for funding agencies to consist of diverse review panels, to support researchers of color, and to fund projects with diverse samples. Third, our interest was in psychological research that highlighted the important role of race in thinking, development, and behavior, although many of the core issues tackled here extend to other social groups as well, including but not limited to those based on gender, sexual orientation, religion, class, and political orientation (see also Duarte et al., 2015; Petty, Fleming, & Fabrigar, 1999).

Notwithstanding these limitations, the present research makes a clear contribution to psychological science. Racial diversity, segregation, and inequality have increased in recent years, particularly in the United States, and this reality has important implications for how people think, develop, and behave. Here, we have documented the extent to which some of the most prestigious journals in psychological science do not reflect this reality but do indeed reflect structural inequality. The few psychology publications that have highlighted race have been edited mostly by White editors who have published fewer articles that highlight race, and they have been written mostly by White authors who have employed fewer participants of color. Simply put, the research, researchers, and researched are all systematically interconnected (Medin et al., 2017). These patterns, of course, vary across decade and area, but overall, they make clear that psychological science has a long way to go if it is to be a truly diverse, equitable, and inclusive enterprise. We advocate for a set of recommendations that takes more seriously the role that racialized experiences have in human psychology, for both White people and POCs, and makes more transparent who regulates, narrates, and participates in psychological science.

Finally, the present work is not an indictment of psychological scientists, although it is an indictment of psychological science. Our field has for decades revealed the pitfalls of psychological biases (e.g., explicit and implicit attitudes, motivated cognition, beliefs in a just world) and structural inequality (e.g., racially homogeneous institutions, hierarchy-enhancing policies, color-blind leadership) and how the dynamic interplay between the two maintain and reinforce racial inequality (see Roberts & Rizzo, 2020; Salter et al., 2018). Yet we have neglected the fact that our own perspectives confine our view of reality. If we are to have a genuinely sound and equitable science, we must acknowledge the role of our finite perspectives and develop practices that ensure our science is not limited or dominated by a single one. As the world becomes increasingly diverse, it will become necessary for our science to become diverse as well. We hope that this truth becomes self-evident as we progress further into the 21st century.