ArticlePublisher preview available

Reducing Racial Bias in Scientific Communication: Journal Policies and Their Influence on Reporting Racial Demographics

May 2024
American Psychologist 79(4):509-521

Authors:

Research titles with White samples, compared to research titles with samples of color, have been less likely to include the racial identity of the sample. This unequal writing practice has serious ramifications for both the history and future of psychological science, as it solidifies in the permanent scientific record the false notion that research with White samples is more generalizable and valuable than research with samples of color. In the present research, we experimentally tested the extent to which PhD students (63% White students, 27% students of color) engaged in this unequal writing practice, as well as the extent to which this practice might be disrupted by journal policies. In Study 1, PhD students who read about research conducted with a White sample, compared to those who read about the exact same research conducted with a Black sample, were significantly less likely to mention the sample’s racial identity when generating research titles, keywords, and summaries. In Study 2, PhD students instructed to mention the racial identity of their samples, and PhD students instructed to not mention the identity of their samples (though to a lesser extent), were less likely to write about the White versus Black samples unequally. Across both studies, we found that PhD students were overall supportive of a policy to make the racial demographics of samples more transparent, believing that it would help to reduce racial biases in the field.

A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.

Learn more

Content available from American Psychologist

This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.

Reducing Racial Bias in Scientiﬁc Communication: Journal Policies and

Their Inﬂuence on Reporting Racial Demographics

Sakaria Laisene Auelua-Toomey

, Elizabeth Mortenson

, and Steven Othello Roberts

1, 2

Department of Psychology, Stanford University

Center for the Study of Comparative Race and Ethnicity, Stanford University

Research titles with White samples, compared to research titles with samples of color, have been

less likely to include the racial identity of the sample. This unequal writing practice has serious

ramiﬁcations for both the history and future of psychological science, as it solidiﬁes in the

permanent scientiﬁc record the false notion that research with White samples is more

generalizable and valuable than research with samples of color. In the present research, we

experimentally tested the extent to which PhD students (63% White students, 27% students of

color) engaged in this unequal writing practice, as well as the extent to which this practice might

be disrupted by journal policies. In Study 1, PhD students who read about research conducted

with a White sample, compared to those who read about the exact same research conducted with

a Black sample, were signiﬁcantly less likely to mention the sample’s racial identity when

generating research titles, keywords, and summaries. In Study 2, PhD students instructed to

mention the racial identity of their samples, and PhD students instructed to not mention the

identity of their samples (though to a lesser extent), were less likely to write about the White

versus Black samples unequally. Across both studies, we found that PhD students were overall

supportive of a policy to make the racial demographics of samples more transparent, believing

that it would help to reduce racial biases in the ﬁeld.

Public Signiﬁcance Statement

We discovered that, when left to their own discretion, PhD students were less likely to

specify the racial demographics of a research sample in their scientiﬁc writing when the

sample was White compared to when it was Black. Such a White-centric bias could imply to

readers that research with White samples is inherently more valuable and generalizable.

However, our ﬁndings also indicate that a journal policy mandating the mention of racial

demographics in research samples can mitigate this racial inequality in communication. This

policy proved more effective than an alternative colorblind policy.

Keywords: metascience, racial hegemony, generics, racial inequality

White people (and White spaces), compared to non-White

people (and non-White spaces), are often conceptualized,

both subconsciously and consciously, as more advanced (e.g.,

as the apex of civilization), neutral (e.g., as unburdened by

a racialized worldview), and normal (e.g., as the standard by

which to judge all “others”;seeAnderson, 2015;Bell, 2018;

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Sakaria Laisene Auelua-Toomey https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0067-

7057

Steven Othello Roberts https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5337-870X

Sample sizes were determined using G*Power software (Faul et al., 2009).

We report all measures and manipulations used in this study, and all data,

code, and research materials are available in the online Supplemental

Materials. Data were analyzed using the R software environment (Version

4.1.1; R Core Team, 2021).

At the drafting of this article, Sakaria Laisene Auelua-Toomey identiﬁed

as Samoan, Elizabeth Mortenson identiﬁed as White, and Steven Othello

Roberts identiﬁed as multiracial.

Sakaria Laisene Auelua-Toomey played a lead role in formal

analysis, visualization, writing–original draft, and writing–review and

editing and a supporting role in investigation, project administration,

and methodology. Elizabeth Mortenson played a lead role in conceptuali-

zation, investigation, and methodology and a supporting role in

project administration. Steven Othello Roberts played a lead role in

conceptualization, writing–original draft, and writing–review and editing

and a supporting role in investigation, methodology, and project

administration.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sakaria

Laisene Auelua-Toomey, who is now at Department of Psychology,

University of Hawai’iatMa¯noa, 2530 Dole Street, Sakamaki, Honolulu,

HI 96822-2294, United States, or Steven Othello Roberts, Department of

Psychology, Stanford University, Building 420, 450 Jane Stanford Way,

Stanford, CA 94305, United States. Email: sakaria4@hawaii.edu or

sothello@stanford.edu

American Psychologist

ISSN: 0003-066X https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001310

509

Dismantling Racism in the Field of Psychology and Beyond: Introduction to the Special Issue

Article

Full-text available

May 2024

In 2021, the American Psychological Association (APA) passed a series of resolutions that initiated a process of atonement for its participation in promoting, perpetuating, and failing to challenge racism and discrimination toward communities of color (APA, 2021a, 2021b). The purpose of this special issue was to examine the ways in which the field of psychology has perpetuated racial hierarchy and harm toward communities of color. More importantly, the included articles offer guidance on the mechanisms and strategies that will aid in the dismantling of racism in the field of psychology and support efforts of reconciliation, repair, and healing. In this introduction, we present a brief history of racism in the field of psychology and highlight theories and methods that should be considered as efforts to combat systemic racial inequities. Articles in this special issue fall into four specific themes that include bias and scientific racism in research, intergroup collaboration, organizational and clinical implications, and changing the culture of psychology.

Contextualizing Gender Disparity in Editorship in Psychological Science

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2022

Discourse on gender diversity tends to overlook differences across levels of hierarchy (e.g., students, faculty, and editors) and critical dimensions (e.g., subdisciplines and geographical locations). Further ignored is its intersection with global diversity—representation from different countries. Here we document and contextualize gender disparity from perspectives of equal versus expected representation in journal editorship, by analyzing 68 top psychology journals in 10 subdisciplines. First, relative to ratios as students and faculty, women are underrepresented as editorial-board members (41%) and—unlike previous results based on one subfield—as editors-in-chief (34%) as well. Second, female ratios in editorship vary substantially across subdisciplines, genres of scholarship (higher in empirical and review journals than in method journals), continents/countries/regions (e.g., higher in North America than in Europe), and journal countries of origin (e.g., higher in American journals than in European journals). Third, under female (vs. male) editors-in-chief, women are much better represented as editorial-board members (47% vs. 36%), but the geographical diversity of editorial-board members and authorship decreases. These results reveal new local and broad contexts of gender diversity in editorship in psychology, with policy implications. Our approach also offers a methodological guideline for similar disparity research in other fields.

Why Antibias Interventions (Need Not) Fail

Article

Full-text available

May 2022
PERSPECT PSYCHOL SCI

There is a critical disconnect between scientific knowledge about the nature of bias and how this knowledge gets translated into organizational debiasing efforts. Conceptual confusion around what implicit bias is contributes to misunderstanding. Bridging these gaps is the key to understanding when and why antibias interventions will succeed or fail. Notably, there are multiple distinct pathways to biased behavior, each of which requires different types of interventions. To bridge the gap between public understanding and psychological research, we introduce a visual typology of bias that summarizes the process by which group-relevant cognitions are expressed as biased behavior. Our typology spotlights cognitive, motivational, and situational variables that affect the expression and inhibition of biases while aiming to reduce the ambiguity of what constitutes implicit bias. We also address how norms modulate how biases unfold and are perceived by targets. Using this typology as a framework, we identify theoretically distinct entry points for antibias interventions. A key insight is that changing associations, increasing motivation, raising awareness, and changing norms are distinct goals that require different types of interventions targeting individual, interpersonal, and institutional structures. We close with recommendations for antibias training grounded in the science of prejudice and stereotyping.

A systemic approach to the psychology of racial bias within individuals and society

Article

May 2023

Historically, the field of psychology has focused on racial biases at an individual level, considering the effects of various stimuli on individual racial attitudes and biases. This approach has provided valuable information, but not enough focus has been placed on the systemic nature of racial biases. In this Review, we examine the bidirectional relation between individual-level racial biases and broader societal systems through a systemic lens. We argue that systemic factors operating across levels - from the interpersonal to the cultural - contribute to the production and reinforcement of racial biases in children and adults. We consider the effects of five systemic factors on racial biases in the USA: power and privilege disparities, cultural narratives and values, segregated communities, shared stereotypes and nonverbal messages. We discuss evidence that these factors shape individual-level racial biases, and that individual-level biases shape systems and institutions to reproduce systemic racial biases and inequalities. We conclude with suggestions for interventions that could limit the effects of these influences and discuss future directions for the field.

Surviving While Black: Systemic Racism and Psychological Resilience

Article

Jan 2023
ANNU REV PSYCHOL

James M Jones

This autobiographical essay traces my personal journey from grandson of a slave to a cultural psychologist examining racism. My journey includes growing up in a small Ohio town, training in social psychology, and an academic career that was launched with the publication of Prejudice and Racism in 1972. I weave my personal experiences with my analytical approach to racism that incorporates individual, institutional, and cultural factors that combine to explain systemic racism. The racism analysis is balanced by a narrative of mechanisms that confer resilience and psychological well-being on Black people as they navigate the obstacles of systemic racism. I also explore diversity as a form of psychological and behavioral competence required to live effectively in a diverse world. I conclude that these aspects of human relations can be better understood and addressed with advancement of diversity science.

Confronting racially exclusionary practices in the acquisition and analyses of neuroimaging data

Article

Dec 2022

Across the brain sciences, institutions and individuals have begun to actively acknowledge and address the presence of racism, bias, and associated barriers to inclusivity within our community. However, even with these recent calls to action, limited attention has been directed to inequities in the research methods and analytic approaches we use. The very process of science, including how we recruit, the methodologies we utilize and the analyses we conduct, can have marked downstream effects on the equity and generalizability of scientific discoveries across the global population. Despite our best intentions, the use of field-standard approaches can inadvertently exclude participants from engaging in research and yield biased brain–behavior relationships. To address these pressing issues, we discuss actionable ways and important questions to move the fields of neuroscience and psychology forward in designing better studies to address the history of exclusionary practices in human brain mapping. The use of field-standard approaches in neuroscience and psychology can exclude participants from research, biasing our understanding of brain–behavior relations. Here the authors discuss how we might address inequity in our scientific methodology.

Dealing with diversity in psychology: Science or ideology?

Preprint

Dec 2022

Bernhard Hommel

The increasing use of political activist arguments and reasoning in scientific communication about diversity is criticized. Based on an article of Roberts, Bareket-Shavit, Dollins, Goldie, and Mortenson (2020) on “Racial inequality in psychological research”, three hallmarks of the intrusion of activist thinking into science are described: (1) blindness to the multidimensional nature of diversity; (2) the failure to distinguish psychological mechanisms from the impact of moderators; and (3) a blindness to agency as an explanation for psychological observations. It is argued that uncritically accepting and introducing political activist arguments into science is likely to damage scientific freedom and independence.

Dealing with Diversity in Psychology: Science and Ideology

Preprint

Dec 2022

Steven Roberts

In the spirit of America’s Shakespeare, August Wilson (1996), I have written this article as a testimony to the conditions under which I, and too many others, engage in scholarly discourse. I hope to make clear from the beginning that although the ideas presented here are not entirely my own – as they have been inherited from the minority of scholars who dared and managed to bring the most necessary, unpalatable, and unsettling truths about our discipline to the broader scientific community – I do not write for anyone but myself and those scholars who have felt similarly marginalized, oppressed, and silenced. And I write as a race scholar, meaning simply that I believe that race--and racism--affects the sociopolitical conditions in which humans, and scholars, develop their thoughts, feelings, and actions. I believe that it is important for all scholars to have a basic understanding of these conditions, as well as the landmines and pitfalls that define them, as they shape how research is conducted, reviewed, and disseminated. I also believe that to evolve one’s discipline into one that is truly robust and objective, it must first become diverse and self-aware. Any effort to suggest otherwise, no matter how scholarly it might present itself, is intellectually unsound.

The representation of authors of color in schizophrenia research articles published in high-impact psychiatric journals

Article

Oct 2022
SCHIZOPHR RES

Objective We evaluate how often scholars of color publish papers on schizophrenia in high-impact psychiatric journals, and whether they are more likely than white authors to prioritize race/ethnicity as a primary variable of interest in analyses. Methods Prior work categorized the types of ethnoracial analyses reported in 474 papers about schizophrenia published in high-impact psychiatric journals between 2014 and 2016. In this study, the photographs of the first and last author for each paper were coded as “person of color” (POC) or “white”. Additionally, each author was asked to self-report their race and ethnicity. The percentage of papers published by white versus POC authors was calculated. Chi-square analyses tested the hypotheses that (a) white scholars are more likely than POC scholars to conduct any sort of racial analysis; (b) POC scholars are more likely to conduct primary analyses by race/ethnicity; and (c) white scholars are more likely to analyze race/ethnicity as extraneous variables. Results Eighteen percent of papers were published by POC first authors, and 17% were published by POC last authors. There were minimal differences in the types of analyses conducted by POC and white authors. Self-reported race/ethnicity showed that Asian scholars were the most highly represented within POC authors (9% of respondents), but only 3% of authors identified as Hispanic/Latinx and none identified as Black or Indigenous American. Conclusions People of color are underrepresented as authors in US-based schizophrenia research published in high-impact journals. Culturally-informed mentorship as well as prioritization of race/ethnicity in funding structures are important to increase representation of POC authors.

Challenging the White = Neutral Framework in Psychology

Article

Aug 2022

In the United States, White samples are often portrayed as if their racial identities were inconsequential to their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and research findings derived from White samples are often portrayed as if they were generalizable to all humans. We argue that these and other practices are rooted in a “White = neutral” framework (i.e., the conceptualization of White samples as nonracial). First, we review existing data and present some new data to highlight the scope of the White = neutral framework. Second, we integrate research from across psychological science to argue that the continued use of the White = neutral framework will prevent psychology from becoming a truly objective and inclusive science for at least three reasons: (a) Research with White samples will be valued over research with samples of color, (b) norms that maintain White neutrality will remain unchallenged, and (c) the role of White identity in psychological processes will remain underspecified and underexamined. Third, we provide recommendations for how to move beyond the White = neutral framework in hopes of encouraging all psychological scientists to move toward a White ≠ neutral framework in which all samples are identified for the unique and diverse perspectives that they bring to the world.

The Effects of Editorial-Board Diversity on Race Scholars and Their Scholarship: A Field Experiment

Article

Jul 2022

Psychological science is in a unique position to identify and dismantle the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that maintain and increase racial inequality, yet the extent to which psychological science can do so depends on the extent to which race scholarship is supported in psychological science. We theorized that the lack of racial diversity among editors at mainstream journals might obstruct the advancement of race scholarship by signaling to race scholars that their research is not valued by mainstream journals and that they should submit their research elsewhere for publication. Indeed, in a preregistered field experiment with 1,189 psychology Ph.D. students, we found that under all-White editorial boards, race scholars were less likely than non–race scholars (a) to believe that the journal valued racial diversity, research on race, or their own research; (b) to believe that the journal would publish their research; and (c) to be willing to submit their research to the journal for publication. Under racially diverse editorial boards, however, we find no differences between race scholars and non–race scholars. In fact, we found that under diverse editorial boards, compared with under all-White editorial boards, both race scholars and non–race scholars had more positive perceptions of the journal. We argue that racially diverse editorial boards are good for race scholars and their scholarship and for the field more broadly.

Reducing Racial Bias in Scientific Communication: Journal Policies and Their Influence on Reporting Racial Demographics

Abstract

Recommended publications

Challenging the White = Neutral Framework in Psychology

Romantic Racism: How Racial Preferences (and Beliefs About Racial Preferences) Reinforce Hierarchy i...

Dealing With Diversity in Psychology: Science and Ideology

The Effects of Editorial-Board Diversity on Race Scholars and Their Scholarship: A Field Experiment