"Does this apply to LGBTQ+ people?" "How might this play out in interracial couples?" "Would we expect the same relationship dynamics in other parts of the world?" These are common questions psychology students raise in courses about romantic relationships when they notice how frequently relationship studies sample college students or White married couples. They wonder whether the relationship principles they're learning about apply to other groups of people as well.
As researchers, this is a question we're eager to answer too. Relationships are key to well-being, and a deep understanding of relationships can help us to identify what makes people thrive. But if researchers only study the relationships of one specific group of people, we may be missing out on important information about what helps everybody else sustain positive relationships.
A Review of Relationship Research Study Demographics
We conducted a review of relationship studies to understand whose experiences romantic relationships research addresses. We asked three main questions: (1) How diverse are the samples used in these studies? (2) Are researchers writing about their samples in ways that are attentive to participant diversity? (3) Has the field improved on sample diversity and inclusive reporting over time?
To answer these questions, we searched eight major journals that publish social psychological research about relationships. We focused on two timeframes (1996-2000 and 2016-2020) and identified 1,762 studies about romantic relationships that were published in the eight journals we selected in those timeframes.
Next, our research team collected information about each sample, including region, race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. We also tracked how researchers wrote about their samples—examining if demographics were reported, and the terminology used when they were. This attention to terminology gave us a sense of whether the typical study used inclusive language.
For example, we noted how frequently researchers used language like "heterosexual couples" to describe their samples. This language is unclear, since it's hard to tell if researchers mean the individuals in the couples are heterosexual and would self-identify as such, or that the couples are made up of men and women. The problem is that this term runs the risk of erasing bisexual people—if all relationships between men and women are described as "heterosexual," this language can erase the unique identities and relationship experiences of bisexual people.
Are Relationship Research Samples Diverse?
What did we find? Information about participants' gender was commonly reported, though acknowledging the existence of transgender people and including nonbinary participants was uncommon—the median percentage of nonbinary participants in research samples was 0%, and inclusion of transgender participants was mentioned in less than 2% of all studies.
Encouragingly, reporting of sexual orientation rose from 7.9% of studies in the 1996-2000 timeframe to 20.9% in the 2016 to 2020 timeframe, suggesting researchers may be paying more attention to sexual orientation when studying relationships. However, around 20% of studies in the later time period still used language like "heterosexual couples," and representation of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people was extremely low in both timeframes—the median percentage of LGB participants was 0%.
For studies from the U.S., reporting of race increased from 51% to 68% between time periods. However, representation of many minoritized racial groups remained low. For example, the median percentage of Black participants in a sample from 2016-2020 was just 7.1%. Additionally, about 20% of studies reported only the percentage of White people in their sample, without mentioning any other racial group—a reporting approach that can centralize White people as the default and treat people of color as a homogenous group.
Across both time periods, the U.S. was the most common region sampled (62% of samples were from the U.S.; 83% of samples came from the U.S., Europe, or Canada), suggesting more needs to be done to conduct relationship research that incorporates a truly global perspective.
Given that research samples are limited in their diversity, people reading about relationship science research should ask "Who do these findings describe?" when thinking through the research's implications. Ideally, as research progresses, "White, heterosexual Americans" will become a less common answer to that question.
How Can We Improve the Way We Do Relationship Research?
So where can we go from here? First, individual researchers can prioritize writing clearly and comprehensively about the demographics of their samples, using language that avoids centering White, heterosexual, U.S. samples and "othering" groups that do not share these characteristics. For example, researchers can report the representation of each gender and racial group (e.g., "the sample was 60% men, 38% women, and 2% nonbinary"), rather than highlighting only the percentage of societally advantaged groups like men or White people (e.g., "the sample was 60% men").
More broadly, academic journals and professional societies can update their norms and policies, such as requiring reporting of basic demographic information. Researchers' own identities and experiences can also influence what gets researched and whose perspectives are valued, so ensuring the field welcomes researchers from all backgrounds may also invite greater diversity in what research is explored.
Relationship research informs our understanding of what makes relationships thrive, but more work needs to be done to ensure that our findings apply to a truly diverse group of people. By making changes to our research practices, we can take a step toward that future—and provide more satisfying answers to people eager to understand everyone's relationships.
For Further Reading
McGorray, E. L., Emery, L. F., Garr-Schultz, A., & Finkel, E. J. (2023). "Mostly White, heterosexual couples": Examining demographic diversity and reporting practices in relationship science research samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,125(2),316–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000417.
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
Garay, M. M., & Remedios, J. D. (2021). A review of White‐centering practices in multiracial research in social psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(10), e12642. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12642
Emma McGorray is a PhD candidate in social psychology at Northwestern University. She studies the identities, experiences, and relationships of LGBTQ+ people and how to make research more diverse and inclusive.
Lydia Emery is an Assistant Professor in Psychology at the University of Chicago. Her research examines romantic relationships—how social class contexts influence relationships, and how relationships shape people's identities as individuals and as couples.
