“Mostly White, heterosexual couples”: Examining demographic diversity and reporting practices in relationship science research samples.

Abstract

Social and personality psychologists aim to “understand individuals in their social contexts for the benefit of all people” (Society for Personality and Social Psychology, n.d.). Though this mission is admirable, value statements do little, on their own, to create an inclusive, high-quality science that benefits humanity broadly. In this research, we evaluate relationship science, a major subfield of social–personality psychology, illustrating both the unique diversity-relevant challenges faced by particular subfields and the barriers to inclusive and diverse research that are shared across research areas. Specifically, we examine the sample diversity and reporting practices of 1,762 studies published in eight mainstream psychology and relationships journals at two time points—(a) 1996–2000 and (b) 2016–2020—and center our analysis around five focal sample characteristics: gender, sexual orientation, regional context, socioeconomic status (SES), and race. We find that reporting practices and representation have not improved for some core demographic characteristics (e.g., socioeconomic status) and that even in domains for which reporting practices have improved (e.g., sexual orientation), reporting remains limited. Further, we find that reporting practices in relationship science frequently center Whiteness (e.g., “participants were mostly White”), obscure or overlook potential sexual orientation diversity (e.g., implying that individuals in man–woman dyads are “heterosexual”), and treat the United States as the contextual default (e.g., participants came from a “large Southeastern university”). In light of these findings, we offer recommendations that we hope will cultivate a more representative and inclusive discipline.

Diversity and inclusion in relationship science: Reflections as an International Section Peer Mentor for Personal Relationships

“…My next recommendation is related to participant recruitment methods. It has been mentioned before (McGorray et al, 2023), though I would be remiss to not mention it in this commentary, as it may be what best helps diversify relationship science. This recommendation is to collaborate with relationship scientists in other geographic regions, as this may help with not only getting connected with a particular group that may be hard to reach but may also help with learning more about a particular group and how to connect with them in a manner that is culturally sensitive.…”

“…In addition, we should aim to be inclusive in the language that we use to describe our participants. Often, I have seen mixed-sex romantic couples referred to as heterosexual couples in the literature (as also noted in McGorray et al, 2023). It should not be assumed that in relationships in which there is one man and one woman, both the man and the woman are heterosexual.…”

“…I am most familiar with the literature on these lines of work, and I have only recently begun to educate myself on the literature regarding the diversity of the samples commonly studied in relationship science (Curran & Randall, 2023; McGorray et al, 2023; Williamson et al, 2022). I have not conducted a systematic review of the literature myself (Curran & Randall, 2023; Ogolsky & Stafford, 2022; Weiser et al, 2022), which may limit the recommendations I can make regarding the diversification of relationship science.…”

“…Above, I discussed my positionality, as well as what I currently understand on human diversity based on my experience as an International Section Peer Mentor, as well as what I have read on the topic (Karney et al, 2004; McGorray et al, 2023; Williamson et al, 2022). Below are the recommendations that I wish to give to relationship scientists, regarding the diversification of the field.…”

Bi+ identity visibility and well-being in the context of romantic relationships.

“…Findings from a daily diary study suggest that many of the negative identity-relevant experiences bi+ people report occur at the interpersonal level, including in romantic contexts (Flanders et al, 2016). Both experiences within one's relationships and others’ perceptions of those relationships may influence bi+ people's feelings of identity visibility, making their relationships an important focus for further research (e.g., Feinstein & Dyar, 2018), especially because sexual minority individuals’ relationships are understudied (McGorray et al, in press). In the present article, we examine how experiences related to relationship status, relationship type, and romantic partner behaviors are linked to a sense of identity visibility.…”