The social and behavioral sciences have long suffered from a lack of diversity in the samples used to study a broad array of phenomena. In an attempt to move toward a more contextually-informed approach, multiple subfields have undertaken meta-science studies of the diversity and inclusion of underrepresented groups in their body of literature. The current study is a systematic review of the field of relationship science aimed at examining the state of diversity and inclusion in this field. Relationship-focused papers published in five top relationship science journals from 2014 to 2018 (N = 559 articles, containing 771 unique studies) were reviewed. Studies were coded for research methods (e.g., sample source, dyadic data, observational data, and experimental design) and sample characteristics (e.g., age, education, income, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation). Results indicate that the modal participant in a study of romantic relationships is 30 years old, White, American, middle-class, college educated, and involved in a different-sex, same-race relationship. Additionally, only 74 studies (10%) focused on traditionally underrepresented groups (i.e., non-White, low-income, and/or sexual and gender minorities). Findings underscore the need for greater inclusion of underrepresented groups to ensure the validity and credibility of relationship science. We conclude with general recommendations for the field.
AllredC.SchweizerV. J. (2020). First divorce rate in the U.S., 2018 (FP-20-02; family profiles). National Center for Family and Marriage Research, 11(7), 1444−1534. DOI: 10.25035/ncfmr/fp-20-02
APA Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards. (2008). Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be?American Psychologist, 63(9), 839–851. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.839
4.
ApicellaC.NorenzayanA.HenrichJ. (2020). Beyond WEIRD: A review of the last decade and a look ahead to the global laboratory of the future. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(5), 319–329. DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.07.015
5.
ArnettJ. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602–614. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.602
6.
BausermanR. (1997). International representation in the psychological literature. International Journal of Psychology, 32(2), 107–112. DOI: 10.1080/002075997400908
7.
BellR. Q.HertzT. W. (1976). Toward more comparability and generalizability of developmental research. Child Development, 47(1), 6–13. DOI: 10.2307/1128278
CheekN. N. (2017). Scholarly merit in a global context: The nation gap in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1133–1137. DOI: 10.1177/1745691617708233
10.
DeJesusJ. M.CallananM. A.SolisG.GelmanS. A. (2019). Generic language in scientific communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(37), 18370–18377. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1817706116
11.
DupreeC. H.KrausM. W. (2021). Psychological science is not race neutral. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 151. DOI: 10.1177/1745691620979820
12.
FeinD. J. (2004). Married and poor: Basic characteristics of economically disadvantaged married couples in the U.S. (Working Paper SHM-01; supporting healthy marriage evaluation). London: Abt Associates. https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/workpaper_3.pdf
13.
Gallander WintreM.NorthC.SugarL. A. (2001). Psychologists’ response to criticisms about research based on undergraduate participants: A developmental perspective. Canadian Psychology, 42(3), 216–225. DOI: 10.1037/h0086893
14.
GrahamS. (1992). “Most of the subjects were White and middle class”: Trends in published research on African Americans in selected APA journals, 1970-1989. American Psychologist, 47(5), 629–639. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.47.5.629
15.
HaeffelG., J.ThiessenE. D.CampbellM. W.KaschakM. P.McNeilN. M. (2009). Theory, not cultural context, will advance American psychology. American Psychologist, 64(6), 570–571. DOI: 10.1037/a0016191
16.
HallG. C. N.YipT.ZárateM. A. (2016). On becoming multicultural in a monocultural research world: A conceptual approach to studying ethnocultural diversity. American Psychologist, 71(1), 40–51. DOI: 10.1037/a0039734
17.
HartmannW. E.KimE. S.KimJ. H. J.NguyenT. U.WendtD. C.NagataD. K.GoneJ. P. (2013). In search of cultural diversity, revisited: Recent publication trends in cross-cultural and ethnic minority psychology. Review of General Psychology, 17(3), 243–254. DOI: 10.1037/a0032260
18.
HawkinsA. J.BlanchardV. L.BaldwinS. A.FawcettE. B. (2008). Does marriage and relationship education work? A meta-analytic study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76(5), 723–734. DOI: 10.1037/a0012584
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
21.
HenryP. J. (2008). College sophomores in the laboratory redux: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of the nature of prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 19(2), 49–71. DOI: 10.1080/10478400802049936
22.
HittnerE. F.HaaseC. M. (2021). Empathy in context: Socioeconomic status as a moderator of the link between empathic accuracy and well-being in married couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(5), 1633–1654. DOI: 10.1177/0265407521990750
KarneyB. R.BradburyT. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3–34. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3
25.
KarneyB. R.KreitzM. A.SweeneyK. E. (2004). Obstacles to ethnic diversity in marital research: On the failure of good intentions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(4), 509–526. DOI: 10.1177/0265407504044845
LivingstonG.BrownA. (2017). Intermarriage in the U.S. 50 Years after Loving v. Virginia. Pew Research Center.
28.
ManningW.CarlsonL. (2021). Trends in cohabitation prior to marriage (FP-21-04; family profiles). National Center for Family and Marriage Research33, 123. DOI: 10.25035/ncfmr/fp-21-04
29.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
NielsenM.HaunD.KärtnerJ.LegareC. H. (2017). The persistent sampling bias in developmental psychology: A call to action. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 162, 31–38. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.04.017
32.
NzingaK.RappD. N.LeatherwoodC.EasterdayM.RogersL. O.GallagherN.MedinD. L. (2018). Should social scientists be distanced from or engaged with the people they study?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11435–11441. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1721167115
PiffP. K.KrausM. W.CôtéS.ChengB. H.KeltnerD. (2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 771–784. DOI: 10.1037/a0020092
35.
PolletT. V.SaxtonT. K. (2019). How diverse are the samples used in the journals ‘Evolution & Human Behavior’ and ‘Evolutionary Psychology’?Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5(3), 357–368. DOI: 10.1007/s40806-019-00192-2
36.
QuY.JorgensenN. A.TelzerE. H. (2020). A call for greater attention to culture in the study of brain and development. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(2), 275–293. DOI: 10.1177/1745691620931461
37.
RadM. S.MartinganoA. J.GingesJ. (2018). Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11401–11405. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1721165115
38.
RaleyR. K.SweeneyM. M.WondraD. (2015). The growing racial and ethnic divide in U.S. marriage patterns. The Future of Children, 25, 89–109. DOI: 10.1353/foc.2015.0014
39.
RobertsS. O.Bareket-ShavitC.DollinsF. A.GoldieP. D.MortensonE. (2020). Racial inequality in psychological research: Trends of the past and recommendations for the future. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(6), 1295–1309. DOI: 10.1177/1745691620927709
40.
RossJ. M.KarneyB. R.NguyenT. P.BradburyT. N. (2019). Communication that is maladaptive for middle-class couples is adaptive for socioeconomically disadvantaged couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(4), 582–597. DOI: 10.1037/pspi0000158
41.
RyanC. L.BaumanK. (2016). Educational Attainment in the United States: 2015 (No. P20-578; current population reports). New York: U.S. Census Bureau.
42.
ScheelA. M.TiokhinL.IsagerP. M.LakensD. (2021). Why hypothesis testers should spend less time testing hypotheses. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 744–755. DOI: 10.1177/1745691620966795
43.
SchultzD. P. (1969). The human subject in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 72(3), 214–228. DOI: 10.1037/ h0027880
44.
SearsD. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 515–530. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.515
45.
SemegaJ.KollarM.ShriderE. A.CreamerJ. F. (2020). Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019 (No. P60-270; current population reports). New York: U.S. Census Bureau.
46.
SmartR. G. (1966). Subject selection bias in psychological research. Canadian Psychologist, 7(2), 115–121. DOI: 10.1037/h0083096
47.
SueS. (1999). Science, Ethnicity, and Bias. American Psychologist, 54(12), 1070–1077. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066x.54.12.1070
48.
SweeneyM. M. (2016). Socioeconomic standing and variability in marriage timing in the twentieth century. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 663(1), 270–291. DOI: 10.1177/0002716215596975
49.
SweeneyM. M.RaleyR. K. (2014). Race, ethnicity, and the changing context of childbearing in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 539–558. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043342
50.
SyedM.SantosC.YooH. C.JuangL. P. (2018). Invisibility of racial/ethnic minorities in developmental science: Implications for research and institutional practices. American Psychologist, 73(6), 812–826. DOI: 10.1037/amp0000294
51.
ThalmayerA. G.ToscanelliC.ArnettJ. J. (2021). The neglected 95% revisited: Is American psychology becoming less American?American Psychologist, 76(1), 116–129. DOI: 10.1037/amp0000622
52.
U.S Census Bureau. (2020). Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2019 (Current Population Survey).
WalkerL.TaylorD. (2021). Same-Sex Couple Households: 2019 (ACSBR-005; American Community Survey Briefs). New York: U.S. Census Bureau.
55.
WatsonR. J.WheldonC. W.PuhlR. M. (2020). Evidence of diverse identities in a large national sample of sexual and gender minority adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(S2), 431–442. DOI: 10.1111/jora.12488
56.
WilliamsD. T. (2019). A call to focus on racial domination and oppression: A response to “Racial and ethnic inequality in poverty and affluence, 1959–2015″. Population Research and Policy Review, 38(5), 655–663. DOI: 10.1007/s11113-019-09538-x
57.
WolfeM. M.YangP. H.WongE. C.AtkinsonD. R. (2001). Design and development of the European American values scale for Asian Americans. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7(3), 274–283. DOI: 10.1037/1099-9809.7.3.274
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
