Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:40:45.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Missing perspective: Marginalized groups in the social psychological study of social disparities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2022

Jes L. Matsick Open the ORCID record for Jes L. Matsick [Opens in a new window] ,
Flora Oswald Open the ORCID record for Flora Oswald [Opens in a new window]  and
Mary Kruk Open the ORCID record for Mary Kruk [Opens in a new window]
Jes L. Matsick
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychology and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16803, USA. [email protected]; https://jmatsick.wixsite.com/uplab [email protected]; [email protected]
Flora Oswald
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychology and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16803, USA. [email protected]; https://jmatsick.wixsite.com/uplab [email protected]; [email protected]
Mary Kruk
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychology and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16803, USA. [email protected]; https://jmatsick.wixsite.com/uplab [email protected]; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drawing on interdisciplinary, feminist insights, we encourage social psychologists to embrace the active participation of marginalized groups in social disparities research. We explain (1) how the absence of marginalized groups' perspectives in research presents a serious challenge to understanding intergroup dynamics and concomitant disparities, and (2) how their inclusion could assuage some of social psychology's “fatal flaws.”

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e82
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, S. M. (2020). Gender matters: The perceived role of gender expression in discrimination against cisgender and transgender LGBQ individuals. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 44(3), 323–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684320929354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowleg, L. (2008). “When Black + lesbian + woman ≠ Black lesbian woman”: The methodological challenges of qualitative and quantitative intersectionality research. Sex Roles, 59(5–6), 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9400-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, E. R., & Murphy, M. C. (2015). Group-based differences in perceptions of racism: What counts, to whom, and why? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9, 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crasnow, S. (2020). Feminist perspectives on science. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (winter 2020 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved March 6, 2020, from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/feminist-science/.Google Scholar
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. The University of Chicago Legal Forum, 140, 139–167.Google Scholar
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaton, A. A., Saunders, J. F., Jacobson, R. K., & West, K. (2020). How gender and race stereotypes impact the advancement of scholars in STEM: Professors’ biased evaluations of physics and biology post-doctoral candidates. Sex Roles, 82, 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01052-w.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eibach, R. P., & Ehrlinger, J. (2006). “Keep your eyes on the prize”: Reference points and racial differences in assessing progress toward equality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(1), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205279585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grzanka, P. R. (2018). Intersectionality and feminist psychology: Power, knowledge, and process. In Travis, C. B., White, J. W., Rutherford, A., Williams, W. S., Cook, S. L., & Wyche, K. F. (Eds.), APA Handbook of the psychology of women (pp. 585–602). American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, S. (2004). Introduction: Standpoint theory as a site of political, philosophic, and scientific debate. In Harding, S. (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 1–16). Routledge.Google Scholar
Held, B. S. (2020). Taking the humanities seriously. Review of General Psychology. 25(2), 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020975024.Google Scholar
hooks, B. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Hoskin, R. A. (2019). Femmephobia: The role of anti-femininity and gender policing in LGBTQ + people's experiences of discrimination. Sex Roles, 81, 686–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01021-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, I.-C., & Crawford, M. (2012). Lesbians in empirical psychological research: A new perspective for the twenty-first century? Journal of Lesbian Studies, 16(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160.2011.557637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacInnis, C. C., & Page-Gould, E. (2015). How can intergroup interaction be bad if intergroup contact is good? Exploring and reconciling an apparent paradox in the science of intergroup relations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(3), 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCormick-Huhn, K., Warner, L. R., Settles, I. H., & Shields, S. A. (2019). What if psychology took intersectionality seriously? Changing how psychologists think about participants. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(4), 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684319866430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rad, M. S., Martingano, A. J., & Ginges, J. (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. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1721165115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichel, P. L. (1988). Southern slave patrols as a transitional police type. American Journal of Police, 7(2), 51–77.Google Scholar
Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2007). Negotiating interracial interactions: Costs, consequences, and possibilities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 316–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00528.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, S. O., Bareket-Shavit, C., Dollins, F. A., Goldie, P. D., & Mortenson, E. (2020). Racial inequality in psychological research: Trends of the past and recommendations for the future. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(6), 1295–1309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620927709.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rolin, K. (2009). Standpoint theory as a methodology for the study of power relations. Hypatia, 24(4), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2009.01070.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, J. R., Gaither, S. E., Urry, H. L., & Maddox, K. B. (2015). Reframing anxiety to encourage interracial interactions. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1(4), 392–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelton, J. N. (2000). A reconceptualization of how we study issues of racial prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(4), 374–390. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0404_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelton, J. N. (2003). Interpersonal concerns in social encounters between majority and minority group members. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(2), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006002003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thalmayer, A. G., Toscanelli, C., & Arnett, J. J. (2020). The neglected 95% revisited: Is American psychology becoming less American? American Psychologist. 76(1), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000622.Google ScholarPubMed
Vorauer, J. D. (2006). An information search model of evaluative concerns in intergroup interaction. Psychological Review, 113(4), 862–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.862.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warner, L. R. (2008). A best practices guide to intersectional approaches in psychological research. Sex Roles, 59, 454–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9504-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar