Missing Base Rates as a Cause of Misinterpretation: A Commentary on Roberts et al. (2020)

In an article in Perspectives on Psychological Science, Roberts et al. (2020) analyzed racial representation among publications and authors within three fields of psychology. This commentary points to two aspects of that article that may inhibit proper interpretation of the findings. First, Roberts et al. do not present population base rates in U.S. demographics when drawing inferences. Specifically, they interpret their bibliometric analysis as indicating an over-representation of White authors in social and developmental psychology with no consideration of base rates. I demonstrate that when base rates are considered, the data show equal representation in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, and White under-representation in the 2010s in both subfields. They also report a correlation between non-White editorship, non-White authorship, and non-White participant recruitment, and then suggest that editorship causes an increase in authorship and participant recruitment. They do not consider that demographic change—an overall increase in the proportion of non-Whites in the U.S.—is an alternative explanation for this phenomenon. Lastly, they claim that race is an unpopular topic but a comparative PsycInfo analysis shows race may be one of the most popular topics in psychology. Thus, there are alternative ways to interpret their data.