ArticleIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2014
Tokenism in psychology: standing on the shoulders of small boys.
Article in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring the Needs of Stakeholders For Successful Patient Involvement in Mental Health Education.Public health reviews · 2025Review
- Psychology is not primarily Empirical Science: A Comparison of Cultures in the Lexical Hypothesis Tradition as a Failure of Introspection.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2017Article
- The Relationship Between Employment Equity Perceptions and Psychological Ownership in a South African Mining House: The Role of Ethnicity.Social indicators researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tokenism is a situation in which a member of a distinctive category is treated differently from other people. This article is about the situation in which Tokens (people perceived as distinctive) are considered experts on something for having the properties of a token (the thing which makes them distinctive). Tokens who differ by appearance or by being born into another culture might be considered experts on cultures grouped into the same racial/cultural category. Tokens who differ by being skilled in number-related mathematics might be considered experts on the mathematization of phenomena. Tokens might say that some result is valid for all people in some racial/cultural category without sufficient evidence, or use number-related mathematics as a mathematization of psychological phenomena without trying to find more abstract mathematizations. This harms psychological research. A possible future genesis of cultural and number tokenisms is discussed, and some suggestions to improve the discourse offered. The effect of tokenism might be diminished if psychologists focus on more proper thinking about psychological phenomena.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.