ORIGINAL ARTICLE Is Mainstream Psychological Research “Womanless” and “Raceless”? An Updated Analysis Jessica L. Cundiff Published online: 20 March 2012 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012 Abstract In the late 20th century, mainstream psychological research was accused of being “womanless” and “raceless” by excluding women and members of racial-ethnic minority groups and by interpreting their experiences as deviant from White male norms. The present article provides an updated analysis of the state of psychological research by examining research published in 2007 in eight prominent journals across four subdisciplines (N 0 255). Two types of data were exam- ined: (1) gender and racial-ethnic representation at the levels of editor, senior author, and participant, and (2) the presence of biased assumptions in reporting tendencies. Representation was interpreted in relation to relevant baselines drawn from U.S. data. Women and members of racial-ethnic minority groups do not appear to be underrepresented as editors in mainstream psychology. However, women continue to be underrepresented as senior authors, and members of racial- ethnic minority groups continue to be underrepresented as research participants. Furthermore, studies using predomi- nately male or White samples (vs. female or racial-ethnic minority samples) were less likely to indicate participant gender or race-ethnicity in the title and marginally less likely to provide a rationale for including participants of only one social group, consistent with the notion that reporting tenden- cies within mainstream psychological research continue to reflect assumptions that men and Whites are more typical members of the category “human” than are women and racial-ethnic minorities. These findings indicate that main- stream psychology has not yet reached social equity and that efforts to increase diversity and decrease subtle biases should continue to be supported and funded. Keywords Androcentrism . Ethnocentrism . Race . Ethnicity . Gender Introduction Mainstream psychology has been accused of being “woman- less” (Crawford and Marecek 1989, p. 149) and “raceless” (Graham 1992, p. 629) by failing to acknowledge that social categories are embedded within hierarchical systems of power and privilege that consequently shape psychological experi- ence. The failure to recognize the influence of social realities on thoughts, feelings, and behavior contributed to a “woman- less” and “raceless” psychology through two primary means. First, women and members of racial-ethnic minority groups were excluded from basic research on the premise that the experiences of men and Whites were representative of the default human experience (Crawford and Marecek 1989; Grady 1981; Guthrie 1976; McHugh et al. 1986). Second, when women and members of racial-ethnic minority groups were included in research, conclusions were interpreted from a comparative framework that viewed their behavior as deviant and problematic in comparison to the behavior of men and Whites (Crawford and Marecek 1989; Graham 1992; Korchin 1980; McLoyd and Randolph 1985; Shields 1975; Tavris 1993; Richards 1997). Full inclusion of all social groups is crucial to the legitima- cy, relevance, and progress of psychological science, and so it is important to provide updated analyses of representation in psychological research. As such, the current work examines the extent to which the two issues described above—the underrepresentation of women and members of racial-ethnic J. L. Cundiff (*) Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, 463 Moore Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA e-mail: jlc563@psu.edu Sex Roles (2012) 67:158–173 DOI 10.1007/s11199-012-0141-7