Executive summary

• What are the Journal Article Reporting Standards for Race, Ethnicity, and Culture?
• How to use JARS–REC
• Frequently asked questions
• References

Members

• Chair: Mo Wang, PhD, University of Florida and APA Publications and Communications Board
• Co-Chair: Seanna Leath, PhD, Washington University in St. Louis
• Asia Eaton, PhD, Florida International University
• Priscilla Lui, PhD, University of Washington
• Fred Oswald, PhD, Rice University and APA Board of Scientific Affairs
• Richard Petty, PhD, The Ohio State University and APA Publication and Communications Board
• Michael Pullmann, PhD, University of Washington School of Medicine
• Andrea Wiglesworth, MA, University of Minnesota Twin Cities
• Hyung Chol (Brandon) Yoo, PhD, Arizona State University
• David Zelaya, PhD, Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Brown University

APA lead staff liaisons, Science Directorate

• Mia Smith-Bynum, PhD, senior director for Science Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Sha Raye Horn, MPS, MBA, senior science program associate
• Derek Snyder, PhD, senior director for Science Strategic Partnerships

APA Publishing liaisons

• Rose Sokol, PhD, publisher, APA Journals and Books
• Steph Pollock, MPS, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion lead, Journals

Liaison organizations

The American Psychological Association (APA) is proud to announce the Journal Article Reporting Standards for Race, Ethnicity, and Culture (JARS–REC) were created in cooperation with the following organizations:

• Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies
  Representative: Monnica Williams, PhD
• Coalition for the Advancement and Application of Psychological Science
  Representative: NiCole Buchanan, PhD
• Society for Behavioral Medicine
  Representative: Jun Ma, MD, PhD
• Society for Neuroscience
  Representative: Martin Usrey, PhD
• Society for Personality and Social Psychology
  Representative: Alison Ledgerwood, PhD; Kwan Lamar Blount-Hill, PhD
• Society for Research in Child Development
  Representative: Suzanne Le Menestrel, PhD
• Society for Research on Adolescence
  Representative: Noni Gaylord-Harden, PhD

The working group expresses its gratitude to the international experts who offered invaluable expertise and feedback on JARS–REC:

• Ahmad Kassab Alshayea, PhD, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia
• Lisiane Bizarro, PhD, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
• Angelo Brandelli Costa, PhD, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
• María del Pilar Grazioso, PhD, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala
• Michael O. Ezenwa, PhD, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Nigeria
• Maria Elena Humphrey, PhD, Universidad Americana, Nicaragua
• Saldin Kimangale, MSc, Somedics Polyclinic Health Centre, Tanzania
• John Francis Leader, PhD, University College Dublin, Ireland
• Mónica Ayala Mira, PhD, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Mexico
• Joaquín Alberto Padilla Bautista, PhD, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Mexico
• Marc Eric Reyes, PhD, University of Santo Tomas, Philippines

The working group expresses its gratitude to additional consultants who offered feedback on the later versions of the JARS–REC:

• Juliane Baron, MPA, executive director, Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences
• Anna Wilson, PhD, associate editor, The Clinical Journal of Pain

Background

The American Psychological Association has acknowledged its role in contributing to systemic inequities, racism, racial discrimination, and denigration of people of color (APA, 2021a) and recognizes its responsibility to address inequity. The creation of Journal Article Reporting Standards for Race, Ethnicity, and Culture (JARS–REC) was an initiative that emerged as a direct response to APA’s Apology to People of Color for APA’s Role in Promoting, Perpetuating, and Failing to Challenge Racism, Racial Discrimination, and Human Hierarchy in U.S. This resolution was adopted by the APA Council of Representatives in October 2021 and aimed to acknowledge APA’s historical involvement in perpetuating and sustaining racism, racial discrimination, and social hierarchies in the United States (APA, 2021a).

Specifically, JARS–REC fulfill APA’s commitments to

• “enhanc[e] expectations in the reporting of psychological science” (APA, 2021c, p. 4);
• “develop a psychological science that helps to dismantle systemic and structural racism that has disproportionally excluded perspectives, scholars, and samples of people of color from scientific research” (APA, 2021c, p. 5); and
• “encourage psychological scientists to conduct and report research within APA journals in a manner that better incorporates samples that are more inclusive of participants of color relevant to their psychological research, as appropriate, to increase the diversity of the samples examined and reported in psychological research” (APA, 2021c, p. 5).

In May 2022, the APA’s Board of Scientific Affairs and Publications and Communications Board collaboratively established a distinguished group of scholars, recognized by its formal name, The Working Group for Journal Reporting Standards for Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Justice in Psychological Science. The primary purpose of this collective effort was to formulate the new JARS–REC within the domain of psychological science. JARS–REC are a significant addition to the compendium of the APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards (APA, 2021b; Appelbaum et al., 2018; Levitt et al., 2018). Known as APA Style JARS, these standards provide authors, reviewers, and editors with clear instructions on the necessary content for each manuscript section, covering qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research.

The working group was composed of 10 psychologists, at varying career stages; possessing intersecting identities; and with expertise and scholarship on matters related to race, marginalized groups, and championing diversity, equity, inclusion, and belongingness. In addition to the working group members, seven liaison organizations, representing a spectrum of psychological associations with diverse perspectives, provided feedback at all stages of the project’s development. The objective behind the creation of the newly proposed JARS–REC was to provide guidance and best practices to authors, reviewers, and editors on discussing race, ethnicity, and culture within scientific manuscripts in the field of psychology.

Rationale

The field of psychological science has long grappled with a consistent lack of representation of people of color in the United States and communities hailing from the global south (Thalmayer et al., 2021). Within this context, it is both noteworthy and unfortunate for the field that published psychological studies across subdisciplines (e.g., social, developmental, clinical) have frequently utilized samples representative of less than 5% of the world’s population (Thalmayer et al., 2021). More specifically, prominent psychological science journals have predominantly relied on samples that are 70% White and American (Arnett, 2008; Thalmayer et al., 2021). A significant number of these studies do not explicitly report demographic information about their samples in relation to current standards and the racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds or other relevant social descriptors (Arnett, 2008; Thalmayer et al., 2021). Consequently, theories, designs, analyses, and interpretations that are drawn from these samples cannot be reliably extended to more diverse populations of interest. Thus, researchers should not view reporting demographics as a mere ritual or tedious inconvenience; it is a critical necessity to understand the context of research, both in individual studies and in an entire body of research (e.g., meta-analyses or other systematic reviews).

For decades, psychological scholars who are experts in diversity issues have urged researchers in the field to contextualize the generalizability and cultural relevance of their theories and empirical evidence from mainstream science (Buchanan et al., 2021). Yet, to date, progress toward enhancing the diversity, equity, inclusion, and belongingness of psychological science, such as by incorporating race, ethnicity, and culture as key factors that underlie a fuller understanding of human psychology, has been disappointingly slow.

Historically, psychological research in the United States has adopted a “White default” that overlooks the important, interesting, and intricate implications of race, ethnicity, culture, and their intersections. This stance continues to create barriers for scholars researching race, ethnicity, and culture, particularly in terms of perceived quality and rigor (Bernal et al., 2003; Graham, 1992; Guthrie, 2004; McLoyd, 1990; Sellers et al., 1998; Sue & Sue, 2003; Syed, 2017). Incorporating such research into disciplinary norms has led to resistance (i.e., epistemic exclusion) in many forms, such as limited recognition of scholars who are broadening mainstream disciplinary norms; racial and ethnic biases embedded within the processes of journal publication, grant funding, and promotion and tenure; and research that explores race, ethnicity, and culture being confined to specialized journals and conference proceedings (Settles et al., 2021).

Moreover, despite a robust knowledge base supporting the importance of conducting research that includes people of color, challenges persist in achieving proper research designs and thoughtful consideration of the cultural and economic understanding of the context of research (Bernal et al., 2003; McLoyd & Steinberg, 1998). Psychological research addressing matters of race, culture, and ethnicity has tended to be taught in limited ways in undergraduate and graduate curricula. As a result, psychological scientists begin their careers with limited knowledge and appreciation of the science and best practices for evaluating and conducting research with racially and ethnically diverse study samples (Roberts et al., 2020). Moreover, authors often fail to describe research samples in sufficient detail to enhance the understanding of the generalizability of the research conducted (Sue & Sue, 2003). Similarly, journal reviewers and editors do not always possess the technical acumen needed to adeptly guide authors in addressing this issue, and they might benefit from drawing such expertise into the review process when it is available. Typically, journal reviewers and editors can provide feedback only in an ad hoc way (i.e., after the data have been collected and reported in the manuscript). JARS–REC can help psychological scientists tackle this persistent lack of adequate consideration for race, ethnicity, and culture when they prepare manuscripts for publication. Moreover, the standards provide strategic recommendations for interpreting and discussing results in a more scientifically accurate manner during the manuscript preparation process. An aspirational goal of JARS–REC is to inspire researchers to incorporate best practices during the research design phase, enabling them to better understand how their work can be more applicable to people of color.

In addition, JARS–REC standards also provide journal reviewers and editors with a comprehensive framework for evaluating manuscripts where issues of race, ethnicity, and culture are the focus and in psychological research more broadly. Furthermore, these standards extend their purview to encompass systemic approaches. For instance, the standards recommend acknowledging systems of oppression and structural and institutional racism and exploring their intersections through research. An example of this acknowledgment would be addressing how contemporary disparate health outcomes between communities are fueled by factors such as racism and colonialism. We acknowledge that JARS–REC will change as culture and best practices advance and that there is no way to cover everything; however, we do aim to provide comprehensive standards for this moment in time.

JARS–REC represent a pivotal step toward rectifying the longstanding gaps in addressing race, ethnicity, and culture within the domain of psychological research, providing clear standards for scholars, reviewers, and editors alike.

For authors

• Authors should familiarize themselves with the JARS–REC standards (PDF, 170KB)opens in new window. It is advisable to do so before initiating a research project, because the standards can aid in making informed research decisions regarding methods for collaboration, data collection, and variable selection.
• Prior to manuscript writing, authors should consult JARS–REC to ensure that their manuscript outline is consistent with JARS–REC recommendations or that they have a well-developed rationale for recommendations that they will not follow.
• When drafting the manuscript, authors should use JARS–REC as a reference to ensure that they have considered all recommendations.
• Some journals may not require consideration of JARS–REC. Even if JARS–REC are not required by a journal, authors who implement these recommendations will significantly strengthen the rigor and quality of their manuscript as they follow current best practices in the field.
• Even if the study is not explicitly focused on race, ethnicity, or culture, participants invariably possess these attributes, and its meaningful description and role in the research being conducted should not be overlooked.
• Although many of the recommendations in JARS–REC are pertinent to quantitative research, they are often relevant for qualitative and mixed methods research as well. Authors should integrate the JARS–REC standards most relevant to their specific study designs.
• When authors are writing about results involving secondary data, they should consult JARS–REC to determine which reporting standards can be followed and which cannot. They should consider explicitly addressing those JARS–REC standards that could not be followed within the manuscript, discussing the potential limitations this puts on the work itself or the interpretation of the work (e.g., “we were unable to disaggregate individuals who are multiracial given the nature of data collection”).
• When authors receive reviewer feedback that does not appear to be well-informed by the JARS–REC standards and/or best practices regarding research on race, ethnicity, and culture, JARS–REC may serve as a resource for authors to use when crafting a response to reviewers and editors during the manuscript review process.
• Although more directly designed for journal article reporting, the JARS–REC standards are also highly relevant for writing grant applications, technical reports, theses and dissertations, and other scientific reports.

For editors

Editors of all journals, whether or not they are affiliated with APA, are encouraged to adopt the JARS–REC for their journals. Sections with guidance for editors and reviewers are included throughout JARS–REC; additional considerations and mechanisms for implementing the standards are outlined below.

• Editors should ensure that JARS–REC standards are available, such as in the instructions to authors as well as in the instructions to reviewers (e.g., including JARS–REC under submission guidelines on the journal’s website).
• The JARS–REC aim to be comprehensive, however, editors and editorial boards may wish to adopt additional race and ethnicity reporting guidance beyond what is in JARS–REC.
• Editors are encouraged to either require or heavily encourage the use of JARS–REC in their journals. Some editors may implement only the facets of the standards that are most relevant to their journal’s area of focus. Other editors may wish to gradually implement certain standards over time. For example, an editor might begin by encouraging authors and reviewers to familiarize themselves with the standards, while requiring that certain specific recommendations in the JARS–REC be implemented, such as acknowledging the racial and ethnic heterogeneity of the sample in the abstract. Over time, editors may adopt additional requirements of JARS–REC—such as gathering input from reviewers and authors on appropriate author positionality statements—as they and authors and reviewers develop greater familiarity with the standards. Partial implementation is better than none, and editors are encouraged to adopt the standards in a way that is sustainable and most relevant to their journals.
• Editors should impress upon reviewers the importance of using JARS–REC to inform their reviews by sharing the JARS–REC standards in the reviewer invitation letter. Editors should likewise share JARS–REC guidance with authors in their “revise and resubmit” decision letters.
• Editors may use JARS–REC as a tool for training their editorial boards on ways to implement equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) commitments for their journals.
• Editors should be mindful of how these reporting standards might increase page length or word counts. Editors should approach page or word limits with a degree of flexibility to balance page budgets with a given manuscript’s improved rigor and quality fostered by JARS–REC. Lengthy descriptive statistics can also be included in supplemental materials.

For reviewers

• Reviewers have an important role in ensuring the quality of published science, and this duty applies to the reporting of information relevant to race, ethnicity, and culture. The JARS–REC standards can be used by reviewers to aid in this process and move toward a more equitable psychological science.
• Reviewers should familiarize themselves with JARS–REC. It may also be helpful for them to have a general understanding of how race, ethnicity, and culture are often reported in their field of study. This background knowledge enables reviewers to compare these conventional practices with the guidance outlined in JARS–REC as they engage with the manuscript.
• In addition, as noted in the JARS–REC standards, conducting a review that promotes equity in the field may mean citing outside of the discipline and encouraging authors to do the same. To the extent that reviewers are familiar with relevant research outside of psychology, they are encouraged to include those citations in reviews.
• Within each review, the reviewers can use JARS–REC as an additional tool for evaluating the reporting of race, ethnicity, and culture throughout the manuscript. JARS–REC extends far beyond recommendations for reporting the racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds of the sample into recommendations about establishing the theoretical foundation for a study, devising an appropriate analytic plan, discussing the generalizability of findings, and fostering an equitable citation praxis. As reviewers examine the manuscript, they should consult the corresponding sections of the JARS–REC to ensure that they completely review all aspects of the study (even and perhaps especially when the manuscript is not focused specifically on race, ethnicity, or culture as target variables).
• In addition, when reporting standards are not upheld, components of JARS–REC can be cited to provide specific feedback to the authors or editors.

1. What is meant by race, ethnicity, and culture?

As defined by the APA Inclusive Language Guide (2nd ed.; 2023, Race, Ethnicity, and Culture section),

• Race:“The social construction and categorization of people on the basis of perceived shared physical traits that result in the maintenance of a sociopolitical hierarchy.”
• Ethnicity: “A characterization of people based on having a shared culture (e.g., language, food, music, dress, values, and beliefs) related to common ancestry and shared history.”
• Culture: “The values, beliefs, language, rituals, traditions, and other behaviors that are passed from one generation to another within any socially definable group. Accordingly, cultural groups could include groups based on shared identities such as ethnicity (e.g., German American, Blackfoot, Algerian American), gender and gender identity (e.g., woman, man, transgender, gender nonconforming), sexual orientation (e.g., gay, lesbian, bisexual), and socioeconomic class (e.g., poor, working class, middle class, wealthy).”

These and additional selected definitions from the Inclusive Language Guide are included in the appendix.

2. I do not study race, ethnicity, or culture. Why do I need JARS–REC?

• Generalizability: All authors need to write precise descriptions of the research sample’s racial and ethnic composition in ways that are consistent with local usage. Depending on the locale, this might also necessitate the inclusion of information about participants’ religious and tribal affiliations to accurately convey details about the sample’s racial and ethnic composition.
  • JARS–REC provide guidance on reporting demographic information and sampling considerations, which strengthens the discussion of constraints on generality (COG). Without proper reporting, the discussion of COG is likely not specific nor are the study conclusions as useful (Simons et al., 2017). This approach also helps guide readers to incorporate race, ethnicity, and culture in deeper or complementary ways in their own future research.
  • Including detailed demographics can be helpful for future meta-analytic research even when the current work does not primarily focus on race, ethnicity, and culture.
• Race, ethnicity, and culture are major social forces that shape human experiences. As such, study participants experience these realities whether or not the research questions focus on these matters. Their impact might vary based on the situation or context in which the work is conducted. The JARS–REC standards are designed to help researchers reason through the ways issues of race, ethnicity, and culture apply to their work while considering context and field of study.
• Historically, psychological research has largely ignored racial issues (Graham, 1992; Guthrie, 2004). It has also reinforced a focus on White Americans as the implicit default research population or the default comparison group for people of color regardless of the research question (i.e., the deficit model approach; Buchanan et al., 2021; Roberts et al., 2020). The synopsis of current best practices in the JARS–REC enables researchers to evaluate their work to ensure (a) that research questions are grounded in an appropriate historical and cultural context and (b) that the research questions appropriately map onto research designs. Researchers should carefully select and implement theoretical framing to ensure that racial, ethnic, and cultural stereotypes are not reified.

3. I am not based in the United States. Does JARS–REC apply to my work?

• Yes, it does. The JARS–REC standards were reviewed by a group of scholars conducting research representing nine international regions (Saudi Arabia, Brazil, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Tanzania, Ireland, Guatemala, and Mexico) of the world to enhance its applicability in non-U.S. contexts. Please review JARS–REC for specific guidance on best practices.

4. What if a JARS–REC recommendation does not apply to my study?

• Although JARS–REC aim to be comprehensive, the standards may not capture every scenario. Authors should use their judgment to adhere to the intent of the standards and adapt the guidance to the study parameters accordingly. Please be sure to review the Guidance for Authors for suggestions on how to address certain writing challenges.

5. What if the reporting criteria suggested by JARS–REC are not mandated by my funding source?

• In such cases, gathering demographic information as specified by both an author’s funding source and JARS–REC is recommended. Additionally, ensure compliance with relevant state and federal reporting regulations where applicable.
• Authors who have already collected data and are unable to follow all JARS–REC standards, may still wish to speak to these elements in their manuscripts (e.g., why was information not collected on a particular demographic variable or the limits to generalizability).

6. When should I capitalize “Black” or “White” when those terms are appropriate for describing my sample?

• In APA Style, capitalizing proper nouns when referring to racial and ethnic groups is recommended. However, there are exceptions to this. For instance, when discussing White racial groups while addressing systemic racism or related disparities stemming from white supremacy, it can be appropriate to use lowercase "white." This choice serves to shift the focus away from white supremacy, both within the field of psychology and in broader society (Singh, 2020). However, some argue for capitalizing "White" to avoid implicitly affirming Whiteness as the norm and to acknowledge how Whiteness operates within institutions and communities (Nguyễn & Pendleton, 2020). JARS–REC standards suggest several resources that encourage researchers to be intentional and thoughtful in their decisions during the data analysis and manuscript writing process.

7. These standards could make my manuscript longer. What should I do?

• One important aim of JARS–REC is to increase the accuracy of the descriptions of research samples. Authors are encouraged to write manuscripts that accurately reflect the racial, ethnic, historical, and cultural aspects of their participants.
  • This might require additional space, but it is also important to adhere to specific journal requirements. For instance, subdiscipline journals often have more concise word limits.

American Psychological Association. (2020a). Bias-free language. https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language

American Psychological Association. (2020b). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000opens in new window

American Psychological Association. (2021a). Apology to people of color for APA’s role in promoting, perpetuating, and failing to challenge racism, racial discrimination, and human hierarchy in U.S. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/racism-apologyopens in new window

American Psychological Association. (2021b, November). Journal article reporting standards. https://apastyle.apa.org/jarsopens in new window

American Psychological Association. (2021c). Role of psychology and the American Psychological Association in dismantling systemic racism against people of color in the United States. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-dismantling-racism.pdfopens in new window

American Psychological Association. (2023). Inclusive language guide (2nd ed.). https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equitydiversity-inclusion/language-guide.pdfopens in new window

Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000191opens in new window

Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.6.602opens in new window

Bernal, G., Trimble, J. E., Burlew, A. K., & Leong, F. T. (2003). Handbook of racial & ethnic minority psychology. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976008opens in new window

Buchanan, N. T., Perez, M., Prinstein, M. J., & Thurston, I. B. (2021). Upending racism in psychological science: Strategies to change how science is conducted, reported, reviewed, and disseminated. American Psychologist, 76(7), 1097–1112. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000905opens in new window

Graham, S. (1992). “Most of the subjects were White and middle class”: Trends in published research on African Americans in selected APA journals, 1970–1989. American Psychologist, 47(5), 629–639. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.5.629opens in new window

Guthrie, R. V. (2004). Even the rat was White: A historical view of psychology (2nd ed.).Pearson Education.

McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on Black families and children: Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child Development, 61(2), 311–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02781.xopens in new window

McLoyd, V. C., & Steinberg, L. (Eds.). (1998). Studying minority adolescents: Conceptual, methodological, and theoretical issues. Psychology Press.

Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, D. M., Josselson, R., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151opens in new window

Nguyễn, A. T., & Pendleton, M. (2020, March 23). Recognizing race in language: Why we capitalize “Black” and “White.” Center for the Study of Social Policy. https://cssp.org/2020/03/recognizing-race-in-language-why-we-capitalize-black-and-white/opens in new window

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/10.1177/1745691620927709opens in new window

Sellers, R. M., Smith, M. A., Shelton, J. N., Rowley, S. A., & Chavous, T. M. (1998). Multidimensional model of racial identity: A reconceptualization of African American racial identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(1), 18–39. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0201_2opens in new window

Settles, I. H., Jones, M. K., Buchanan, N. T., & Dotson, K. (2021). Epistemic exclusion: Scholar(ly) devaluation that marginalizes faculty of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 14(4), 493–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000174opens in new window

Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y., & Lindsay, D. S. (2017). Constraints on generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1123–1128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617708630opens in new window

Singh, A. (2020). Building a counseling psychology of liberation: The path behind us, under us, and before us. The Counseling Psychologist, 48(8), 1109–1130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000020959007opens in new window

Sue, S., & Sue, L. (2003). Ethnic research is good science. In G. Bernai, J. E. Trimble, A. K. Burlew, & F. T. L. Leong (Eds.), Handbook of racial and ethnic minority psychology (pp. 198–207). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976008.n10opens in new window

Syed, M. (2017). Why traditional metrics may not adequately represent ethnic minority psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1162–1165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617709590opens in new window

Thalmayer, A. G., Toscanelli, C., & Arnett, J. J. (2021). The neglected 95% revisited: Is American psychology becoming less American? American Psychologist, 76(1), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000622opens in new window

Selected definitions from the APA Inclusive Language Guide (2nd ed.)

The following definitions are from APA’s (2023) Inclusive Language Guide (2nd ed.) (PDF, 900KB)opens in new window. Citations within these definitions refer to references within that document.

Culture

The values, beliefs, language, rituals, traditions, and other behaviors that are passed from one generation to another within any socially definable group. Accordingly, cultural groups could include groups based on shared identities such as ethnicity (e.g., German American, Blackfoot, Algerian American), gender and gender identity (e.g., woman, man, transgender, gender- nonconforming), sexual orientation (e.g., gay, lesbian, bisexual), and socioeconomic status (e.g., poor, working class, middle class, wealthy; APA Task Force on Race and Ethnicity Guidelines in Psychology, 2019b).

Ethnicity

A characterization of people based on having a shared culture (e.g., language, food, music, dress, values, and beliefs) related to common ancestry and shared history (APA, 2021c).

Hispanic, Latino, Latina, Latino/a, Latin@, Latine, Latinx, or Chicano

When writing about people who identify as Hispanic, Latino, Latina, Latin@, Latine, Latinx, Chicano, or another related designation, you should consult with the individuals with whom you are working to determine the appropriate terminology.

• Note that “Hispanic” is not necessarily an all-encompassing term, and the labels “Hispanic” and “Latine” have different connotations.
• The term “Latine” (and its related forms) might be preferred by those originating from Latin America, including Brazil. “Latine” is a gender-inclusive alternative that is far more adaptable to the Spanish language than “Latinx” (Ochoa, 2022).
• Some use the word “Hispanic” to refer to those who speak Spanish; however, not every group in Latin America speaks Spanish (e.g., the official language of Brazil is Portuguese).
• The word “Latino” is gendered (i.e., “Latino” is masculine, and “Latina” is feminine), whereas the term “Latine” is gender inclusive.

The term “Latinx” may be used for people who identify as Latinx but may not broadly resonate as an inclusive term given that the “x” signifier does not conform with Spanish or Portuguese syntax (de Onís, 2017). Typically, the most marginalized communities do not use “Latinx” (Ochoa, 2022). Individuals who tend to self-identify as Latinx are likely to be U.S.-born young adults who are predominantly English speakers. Whenever possible, use terms that people use to describe themselves.

In general, naming a nation or region of origin is preferred (e.g., Bolivian, Dominican, Salvadoran, or Costa Rican is more specific than Latino, Latine, Latinx, Latin American, or Hispanic; APA, 2020b, 2022a).

Indigenous

The Native American Journalists Association (n.d.) states that although no official definition of “Indigenous” exists, “the United Nations has developed an understanding of the term based on self-identification; historical continuity to pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies; links to territories and resources, distinct social, economic and political systems and possession of distinct languages, cultures and beliefs” (Indigenous or Aboriginal section). Capitalize “Indigenous People” when referring to a specific group; when describing specific persons who are Indigenous, capitalize “Indigenous” but not “people” (APA, 2020b, 2022a; for more information, see APA’s bias-free language guidelines on racial and ethnic identity). Avoid using possessive language in reference to Indigenous groups, such as “of” or “our.” For example, First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples in Canada prefer that any possessive language be avoided because they do not “belong” to Canada but are sovereign nations in their own right (Queens University, 2019).

Indigenous Peoples around the world

When writing about Indigenous Peoples, use the names that they call themselves. In general, refer to an Indigenous group as a “people” or “nation” rather than as a “tribe.” The bias-free language guidelines of the Publication Manual (APA, 2020b, p. 144) make the following distinctions:

In North America, the collective terms “Native American” and “Native North American” are acceptable (and may be preferred to “American Indian”). “Indian” usually refers to people from India. Specify the nation or people if possible (e.g., Cherokee, Navajo, Sioux).

Hawaiian Natives may identify as “Native American,” “Hawaiian Native,” “Indigenous Peoples of the Hawaiian Islands,” and/or “Pacific Islander.”

In Canada, refer to the Indigenous Peoples collectively as “Indigenous Peoples” or “Aboriginal Peoples” (National Aboriginal Health Organization, n.d.); specify the nation or people if possible (e.g., People of the First Nations of Canada, People of the First Nations, or First Nations People; Métis; Inuit).

In Alaska, the Indigenous People may identify as “Alaska Natives.” The Indigenous Peoples in Alaska, Canada, Siberia, and Greenland may identify as a specific nation (e.g., Inuit, Iñupiat). Avoid the term “Eskimo” because it may be considered pejorative.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, refer to the Indigenous Peoples collectively as “Indigenous Peoples” and by name if possible (e.g., Quechua, Aymara, Taíno, Nahuatl).

In Australia, the Indigenous Peoples may identify as “Aboriginal People” or “Aboriginal Australians” and “Torres Strait Islander People” or “Torres Strait Island Australians.” Refer to specific groups when people use these terms to refer to themselves (e.g., Anangu Pitjantjatjara, Arrernte).

In New Zealand, the Indigenous People may identify as “Māori” or the “Māori people” (the proper spelling includes the diacritical macron over the “a”).

For information on citing the Traditional Knowledge or Oral Traditions of Indigenous Peoples as well as capitalizing terms related to Indigenous Peoples, see Sections 5.7 and 8.9, respectively, of the Publication Manual (APA, 2020b).

People of color

This term represents a shift from the term “minority” to refer to individuals from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. Although it is acceptable for communities to be described as “minoritized,” it is not recommended to refer to people or a population as minority. Instead, use “people of color” or “communities of color” when referring to groups from diverse backgrounds who are non-White. When appropriate, you may use the terms underserved, underrepresented, or marginalized to describe populations of color; however, use the specific group title whenever possible, such as Asian American women, Black students, or Indigenous communities (APA, 2020b, 2022a).

Race

The social construction and categorization of people on the basis of perceived shared physical traits that result in the maintenance of a sociopolitical hierarchy (APA, 2021c).

Marginalization/marginalized groups

“Marginalized communities are those excluded from dominant social, economic, educational, and/or cultural life” (Sevelius et al., 2020, p. 2009). Examples of marginalized populations include, but are not limited to, groups excluded because of age, gender, gender identity and expression, race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, immigration status, language, disability, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Marginalization occurs because of “unequal power relationships between social groups” that perpetuate and sustain inequities (Sevelius et al., 2020, p. 2009).

Tribe

As stated in the definition of “Indigenous people,” the term “tribe” has a pejorative meaning for many groups. Outside of being used to describe racial, ethnic, and/or cultural groups, the word “tribe” was historically used in a dehumanizing way to equate Indigenous people with being “savage” or “primitive.” Modern misuse of the term perpetuates stereotypes about African and Indigenous peoples (Kojo Institute, 2020). Whenever possible, identify Indigenous people by their specific nations or communities. Do not use a general term such as “Oklahoma Native American Tribe” or “Native American group” when a specific term exists. Although Indigenous groups may share a common history of oppression and colonialism, every Indigenous group is diverse and different. Not using the name of the group to which you are referring is inaccurate and unfair, undermines diversity, and erases identity (Native American Journalists Association, n.d.). If you cannot be specific, use “people” or “community.”