Color-Evasive Cognition: The Unavoidable Impact of Scientific Racism in the Founding of a Field

Abstract

Cognitive psychology has traditionally focused on investigating principles of cognition that are universal across the human species. The motivation to identify “cognitive universals” stems from the close relationship between biology and human cognition and from the theoretical architecture presupposed by the information-processing model. In this article, we argue that the underlying theoretical assumption of universality also stems from epistemological and methodological assumptions that laws of cognition can be effectively developed only by controlling for variables deemed to be outside the scope of internal cognition. These assumptions have resulted in the development of a science of human cognition based on the performance and behavior of a White, English-speaking, normatively invisible, racially color-evasive, socially dominant (WEIRD) class. In this article, we identify how scientific racism has influenced the study of cognition and offer perspective on how researchers may reconsider many of the premises that undergird our approach.

A new path: Why we need critical approaches to cognitive and psychological sciences.

“…There is a long history, outside of mainstream psychological research, of pushing back against generalizing and normalizing from homogeneous participant groups. Important work questioning normativity can be found in Black psychology (Boykin, 1977), deaf and disability studies (Canagarajah, 2022), cultural psychology (Rogoff, 2003), neurodiversity (Manalili et al, 2023), sociocultural psychology (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Spencer et al, 1997; Vygotskiĭ, 1978), language development (Figueroa, 2023), feminist psychology (Pitts-Taylor, 2019), education (Joseph et al, 2019; Martin, 2019), and recent cognitive sciences (Prather, 2021; Thomas et al, 2023; Zhang et al, 2023).…”

Cognitive scripts and narrative identity are shaped by structures of power

“…In short, attention to context and variation in context as relevant to cognitive processes has always been acknowledged by cognitive researchers. But that attention to context has often functioned to demonstrate a process presumed to be universal, and very few cognitive researchers have explored issues of power, even when they are entirely relevant to the phenomenon [13]. For example, does the rationalist worldview of Britain begin to bend the way colonized groups recall novel experiences?…”

“…The predominant situational approach to context has been paired with an assumed and relatively untested universal generalizability of cognitive processes [11,12,13]. For example, in a recent analysis, virtually none of the examined cognitive psychology papers highlighted race [12].…”

Changing the culture of peer review for a more inclusive and equitable psychological science.

“…We explore peer review as a critical site for intervention to reduce group-based disparities in psychological science (Buchanan et al, 2021a). The culture of science is shaped by the identities of those who built it (i.e., economically advantaged, White, cis-male individuals; Buchanan et al, 2021a; Garay & Remedios, 2021; Ledgerwood et al, 2022; Lewis, 2021; Stanley, 2007; Thomas et al, 2023). Within psychology and neuroscience, the overrepresentation of people from Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) societies shapes the way research is done, who does the research, and which populations and questions are studied.…”

“…To broaden representation and inclusion in science, it is critical for the stakeholders of the peer-review process to consciously counteract practices that center Whiteness (Garay & Remedios, 2021), rely on WEIRD samples as the “default” (Henrich et al, 2010; Prather, 2021; Ricard et al, 2023; Roberts & Mortenson, 2023), and, in centering a normative experience, marginalize the experience and cognitive properties of others (Majid, 2023; Thomas et al, 2023). One example of this bias in action is seeing samples from Majority World (non-Western) countries as a better fit for “local” journals (Draper et al, 2022) or requiring a White comparison group rather than centering non-White experiences.…”