CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,049Psychology Research and BibliometricsRacial and Ethnic Identity ResearchMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 83 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access
Roberts, Steven O., Bareket-Shavit, Carmelle, Dollins, Forrest A., Goldie, Peter D., Mortenson, Elizabeth·2020·Perspectives on Psychological Science
DOI 10.1177/1745691620927709

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1745691620927709

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 83 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Glasgow J. (2009). A theory of race. New York, NY: Routledge.
  2. 10.1111/psyp.12087 · DOI
  3. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2021.01770.x · DOI
  4. 10.1188/0146167299025002005 · DOI
  5. 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 1,000

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Roberts, S. O., Bareket-Shavit, C., Dollins, F. A., Goldie, P. D., & Mortenson, E.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Roberts, Steven O.
ORCID
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2020-06-24
Volume
15
Issue
6
Pages
1295-1309
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
DOI
10.1177/1745691620927709
OpenAlex
W3037526009
Cited by
1,049
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 100 · 2025: 161 · 2024: 230 · 2023: 211 · 2022: 182 · 2021: 148 · 2020: 16
FWCI
134.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
authorship diversity, journal editors, cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, social psychology, research participation, meta-research, diversity in psychology, publication trends
MeSH terms
Authorship, Female, Humans, Male, Periodicals as Topic, Psychology, Editorial Policies, Behavioral Research, Research Subjects, White People, Research Report, Racism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review