Research titles with White samples, compared to research titles with samples of color, have been less likely to include the racial identity of the sample. This unequal writing practice has serious ramifications for both the history and future of psychological science, as it solidifies in the permanent scientific record the false notion that research with White samples is more generalizable and valuable than research with samples of color. In the present research, we experimentally tested the extent to which PhD students (63% White students, 27% students of color) engaged in this unequal writing practice, as well as the extent to which this practice might be disrupted by journal policies. In Study 1, PhD students who read about research conducted with a White sample, compared to those who read about the exact same research conducted with a Black sample, were significantly less likely to mention the sample's racial identity when generating research titles, keywords, and summaries. In Study 2, PhD students instructed to mention the racial identity of their samples, and PhD students instructed to not mention the identity of their samples (though to a lesser extent), were less likely to write about the White versus Black samples unequally. Across both studies, we found that PhD students were overall supportive of a policy to make the racial demographics of samples more transparent, believing that it would help to reduce racial biases in the field. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

减少科学传播中的种族偏见：期刊政策及其对报告种族人口统计的影响。


与带有有色人种样本的研究标题相比，带有白人样本的研究标题不太可能包含样本的种族身份。这种不平等的写作实践对心理科学的历史和未来都产生了严重的影响，因为它在永久的科学记录中巩固了一个错误的观念，即使用白色样本的研究比使用有色人种样本的研究更具普遍性和价值。在本研究中，我们通过实验测试了博士生（63% 白人学生，27% 有色人种学生）参与这种不平等写作实践的程度，以及这种实践可能在多大程度上受到期刊政策的干扰。在研究 1 中，与阅读过使用黑人样本进行的完全相同的研究的博士生相比，阅读过使用白人样本进行的研究的博士生在生成研究标题、关键词和信息时提及样本的种族身份的可能性要小得多。总结。在研究 2 中，要求博士生提及其样本的种族身份，而要求博士生不要提及其样本的身份（尽管程度较小），他们不太可能不平等地描述白人与黑人样本。在这两项研究中，我们发现博士生总体上支持一项使样本的种族人口统计数据更加透明的政策，认为这将有助于减少该领域的种族偏见。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。