Open AccessHow diverse are the samples used to study intimate relationships? A systematic review
Author(s) -
Hannah C. Williamson,
Jerica X. Bornstein,
Veronica Cantu,
Oyku Ciftci,
Krystan A. Farnish,
Megan T Schouweiler
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of social and personal relationships
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.251
H-Index - 84
eISSN - 1460-3608
pISSN - 0265-4075
DOI - 10.1177/02654075211053849
Subject(s) - inclusion (mineral) , psychology , diversity (politics) , sexual orientation , credibility , ethnic group , social psychology , observational study , race (biology) , sample (material) , developmental psychology , gender studies , sociology , political science , medicine , chemistry , pathology , chromatography , anthropology , law
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 2014-2018 ( N = 559 articles, containing 771 unique studies) were reviewed. Studies were coded for research methods (e.g., sample source, dyadic data, observational data, experimental design) and sample characteristics (e.g., age, education, income, race/ethnicity, 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.