Summaries of initial survey responses

Equity, diversity, and inclusion in the PsychoPy community

Author

Affiliation

Patrick Bolger, PhD | Community Development Champion

School of Psychology at the University of Nottingham

Published

19 Jun 2025, 4:20 pm

(Powered by Quarto and R)

introduction

This report summarises the findings of a survey sent out to the PsychoPy community between 28 November 2022 and 16 March 2023. The topic was equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in the PsychoPy community.

Funding

The development of the survey was funded by a grant from the Essential Open Source Software for Science program at the Chan Zuckerberg Inititiative. Here is the project page at CZI.

It was the first, baseline version, of two identical surveys to be sent out. The second will be sent out in 2024.

It was sent out as an announcement to the PsychoPy User Forum on the Discourse platform. It was also sent out by email to a list of authors generated through a cited-reference search on the Web of Science. Specifically, these authors published multiple research studies citing one or more papers authored (or co-authored) by Jonathan Peirce over the past two decades about PsychoPy.

The survey contained between 25-75 questions, depending on how participants responded.

Responses were all anonymous. That is, nowhere do we have any record of who, exactly, replied to the survey.

There were three main parts to the survey:

participant background
EDI experience
guidance

Participant background asked participants about their career status, the degree to which they were engaged in the PsychoPy community, how they contributed to the project, and if there was anything that deterred them from contributing more than they already do.

Below are the full survey categories in more detail, roughly in order of the original presentation.

Professional & PsychoPy background
- career status
- type of engagement with PsychoPy^®
- ways of contributing
- deterrents to contributing
EDI experience
- gender
- sexual orientation
- race and/or culture
- disability and/or neurodivergence
- language dominance
PsychoPy Guidance
- awareness of Code of Conduct
- findability, searchability, & accessibility of documentation
- trust in enforcement of Code of Conduct

general

original order of presentation

The original presentation of the survey begins with professional and PsychoPy background questions. It then proceeds to issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) for respondents who indicated that they not only are part of a particular identity of interest, but also feel they have been affected somehow by having that identity in the PsychoPy community. The survey finished with a few questions about the Code of Conduct and documentation, which we will simply call PsychoPy guidance. Thus:

Professional and PsychoPy background
EDI experience
PsychoPy guidance

Each participant saw the all of the professional and PsychoPy background items on the survey, as well as the PsychoPy guidance items. In the section on EDI experience, each respondent saw at least one of the questions, with the exception of gender, in which case everyone saw at least two.

The one EDI questions that everyone saw had to do with whether they identified with, or was typically associated with, one of the EDI groups. In the case of gender, they simply indicated what their gender was, or if it was not listed.

If they answered yes to any particular EDI question (or any response for gender), two more questions appeared. The first invited them to supply more specific information about that particular aspect of their identity, but only if they wanted to. The second had to do with whether they felt that this particular aspect of their identity had affected their interactions in the PsychoPy^® community.

Importantly, this latter question determined whether participants saw a further eight questions regarding that particular identity. If they answered yes, they saw those questions a little bit later in the survey. If they answered no, they did not.

This has an important implication. Namely, although one may identify or be associated with a particular identity, that does not necessarily mean that one feels that it had affected one’s interactions in the PsychoPy^® community. Indeed, there were many participants throughout the survey who felt that although they are associated with a particular identity, it had not affected their interactions.

Recall that for the dimension of gender, everyone saw the question concerning whether they felt that their interactions had suffered as a result of gender. This is because everyone has a gender identity, so there was no logical way of excluding anyone from seeing the subsequent community-interaction question.

order of data summaries

Each of the headings in the list above above is depicted below with a visualization, followed by a table of the data, and in the cases of identity, a table of labels that some participants optionally supplied to describe themselves on that particular EDI variable.

Ultimately however, it makes more sense to present the data summaries in a different order. Specifically, it would be informative to see how the background variables and related issues interact with the EDI variables. Therefore, the background and guidance variables are presented after the EDI variables, giving us a data-summary order as follows:

EDI experience
Professional & PsychoPy background
PsychoPy Guidance

Each background and guidance variable is presented in isolation first, but then followed by two-way interactions with the EDI variables of gender, sexual orientation, race/culture, disability/neurodivergence, and written-English language dominance. In some cases, the interactions with the latter four EDI variables are presented in a single figure.

To the extent possible, each summary is available as a link in the sidebar. However, some interactions were grouped together and don’t have links, per se. Most commonly, interactions with gender are linked, followed by interactions with other EDI variables.

Note that none of the questions required responses. This means that there will be plenty of non-responses in the summaries below. These are indicated as either NA or missing.

data summaries

participant EDI experience

The second group of items on the survey (again, presented first here) collected information about selected dimensions of equity, diversity, and inclusion, namely gender, sexual orientation, race and/or culture, disability and/or neurodivergence, and language dominance.

For each dimension, participants were asked if they identified with the dimension, or whether they thought that others would associate them with it, along with the optional opportunity to supply more information about their own specific identity along this dimension.

Crucially, they were also asked whether they felt that that identity or association had affected their interactions in the PsychoPy^® community. If they answered in the affirmative, they saw eight more questions related to this identity shortly thereafter in the survey.

Thus, the reader will notice that the sample sizes uniformly differ greatly between those who answered the background questions, and those who answered the eight further questions.

These eight further questions fell into three categories in the manner shown below:

Treatment by others
- negative perception
- need to hide identity
- dismissiveness towards contributions
- target of derisive comments
- target of microaggressions
Self-regard
- self-doubt
- stereotype threat
Isolation
- a desire to interact with others more like themselves

Participants could agree or disagree with each of these statements using a 1-7 Likert scale, where 1 indicated Strongly disagree and a 7 indicated Strongly agree.

Note

Note that on the 1-7 scale for each of the statements, the number 4 is directly in the middle of the scale, which can be interpreted as neither agreeing nor disagreeing. You will see that we set responses of 4 to the side of the respective stacked frequency barplots, in yellow.

Also, the barplots are sorted within each category (treatment, self-regard, and isolation) along descending frequency of agreement. That is, the topmost barplot within each category is the one with highest number of agreements, whereas the bottom-most barplot within each category is the one with the highest number of disagreements.

Summaries of the responses to these statements are provided below after the respective questions concerning their identity.

gender

The first EDI category is gender. We present the responses to the issue of identity, followed by a table of descriptions (supplied by some of the participants). This is followed by whether the participant felt affected in the PsychoPy^® community by that identity. Finally, we summarise the participants responses to items listed under treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

identity

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

Which gender do you identify most with?

figure

Barplot of responses to the following statement: 'Which gender do you identify most with?'

table

Summary of responses to gender.
Question	N = 2301
Which gender do you identify most with?
man	133 (58%)
woman	85 (37%)
not listed	8 (3.5%)
(missing)	4 (1.7%)
1n (%)

descriptions

If participants chose not listed as an answer above, they were given the opportunity to describe their gender in their own words, though doing so was optional. For those who did, the table below lists the descriptions they provided. The “NA” in the table refers to those who either did not see the question or chose not to supply a description.

The question was as follows:

Feel free to describe your gender here (or not)

felt affected

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

Do you feel that your gender status has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?

figure

Barplot of responses to: 'Do you feel that your gender status has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?'

table

Summary of responses to whether participants felt affected by their gender identity.
Question	N = 2301
Do you feel that your gender status has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?
Yes	5 (2.2%)
No	209 (91%)
(missing)	16 (7.0%)
1n (%)

Important

Important: The question directly above regarding gender determined whether or not the participant saw the respective items directly below regarding treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

treatment, self-regard, isolation

The following statements were seen only by the subset of participants noted above. Specifically, they were restricted to the five who replied yes to the question asking them whether they had felt that their gender identity has affected their interactions with the PsychoPy^® community. Of those, four provided responses, seen below.

The exact questions are listed in the verbal summary after the visualization.

figure

Stacked frequency barplots of responses to several statements on gender, categorised into the following: treatment by others, self-regard, and isolation.

table

Statistics for responses to statements regarding gender
	spanVar
Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)	N = 230
I feel that I have been negatively perceived [due to my gender]
Mean	1.8
SD	1.50
Median	1.0
Q1, Q3	1.0, 2.5
Min, Max	1, 4
I have felt the need to hide [my gender] in order to be taken seriously
Mean	2.3
SD	1.89
Median	1.5
Q1, Q3	1.0, 3.5
Min, Max	1, 5
My questions and/or contributions have been ignored at times [due to my gender]
Mean	2.0
SD	1.41
Median	1.5
Q1, Q3	1.0, 3.0
Min, Max	1, 4
I have been the target of intentionally derisive comments [due to my gender]
Mean	2.0
SD	1.41
Median	1.5
Q1, Q3	1.0, 3.0
Min, Max	1, 4
[Due to my gender] I have been the target of often unintentional, but subtly disdainful comments that are cumulatively hurtful
Mean	2.3
SD	1.89
Median	1.5
Q1, Q3	1.0, 3.5
Min, Max	1, 5
[Due to my gender] I have doubted my own potential
Mean	3.8
SD	2.17
Median	4.0
Q1, Q3	3.0, 4.0
Min, Max	1, 7
[Due to my gender] I have feared being negatively judged by others, which has discouraged me from trying out new skills
Mean	3.6
SD	2.30
Median	4.0
Q1, Q3	2.0, 4.0
Min, Max	1, 7
I wish I saw more people in the community that were similar [in gender] to me
Mean	3.2
SD	3.03
Median	1.0
Q1, Q3	1.0, 6.0
Min, Max	1, 7

sexual orientation

The second EDI category is sexual orientation. As above, we present the responses to the issue of identity, followed by a table of descriptions (supplied by some of the participants). This is followed by whether the participant felt affected in the PsychoPy^® community by that identity. Finally, we summarise the participants responses to items listed under treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

identity

figure

Barplot of responses to the following: 'Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you somehow NOT to be part of the heterosexual community?'

table

Summary of responses to sexual orientation
Question	N = 2301
Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you somehow NOT to be part of the heterosexual community?
Yes	36 (16%)
No	189 (82%)
(missing)	5 (2.2%)
1n (%)

descriptions

If participants chose yes as an answer above, they were given the opportunity to describe their sexual identity, though doing so was optional. For those who did, the table below lists the descriptions they provided. The “NA” in the table refers to those who either did not see the question or chose not to supply a description.

The question was as follows:

Feel free to describe your sexual orientation here (or not)

felt affected

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

Do you feel that your sexual orientation has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?

figure

Barplot of responses to the following: 'Do you feel that your sexual orientation has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community...?'

table

Summary of responses to whether participants felt affected by their sexual orientation
Question	N = 2301
Do you feel that your sexual orientation has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?
Yes	1 (0.4%)
No	35 (15%)
(missing)	194 (84%)
1n (%)

Important

Important: The question directly above regarding sexual orientation determined whether or not the participant saw the respective items directly below regarding treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

treatment, self-regard, isolation

The following statements were seen only by the subset of participants noted above. Specifically, they were restricted to the one who replied yes to the question asking them whether they had felt that their sexual orientation has affected their interactions with the PsychoPy^® community. Of those, one provided responses, seen below.

The exact questions are listed in the verbal summary after the visualization.

figure

Stacked frequency barplots of responses to several statements on sexuality, categorised into the following: treatment by others, self-regard, and isolation.

table

Statistics for responses to statements regarding sexual orientation
	spanVar
Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)	N = 230
I feel that I have been negatively perceived [due to my non-heterosexuality]
Mean	2.0
SD	NA
Median	2.0
Q1, Q3	2.0, 2.0
Min, Max	2, 2
I have felt the need to hide [my non-heterosexuality] in order to be taken seriously
Mean	2.0
SD	NA
Median	2.0
Q1, Q3	2.0, 2.0
Min, Max	2, 2
My questions and/or contributions have been ignored at times [due to my non-heterosexuality]
Mean	2.0
SD	NA
Median	2.0
Q1, Q3	2.0, 2.0
Min, Max	2, 2
I have been the target of intentionally derisive comments [due to my non-heterosexuality]
Mean	2.0
SD	NA
Median	2.0
Q1, Q3	2.0, 2.0
Min, Max	2, 2
[Due to my non-heterosexuality] I have been the target of often unintentional, but subtly disdainful comments that are cumulatively hurtful
Mean	2.0
SD	NA
Median	2.0
Q1, Q3	2.0, 2.0
Min, Max	2, 2
[Due to my non-heterosexuality] I have doubted my own potential
Mean	1.0
SD	NA
Median	1.0
Q1, Q3	1.0, 1.0
Min, Max	1, 1
[Due to my non-heterosexuality] I have feared being negatively judged by others, which has discouraged me from trying out new skills
Mean	2.0
SD	NA
Median	2.0
Q1, Q3	2.0, 2.0
Min, Max	2, 2
I wish I saw more people in the community that were similar [in non-heterosexuality] to me
Mean	4.0
SD	NA
Median	4.0
Q1, Q3	4.0, 4.0
Min, Max	4, 4

race / culture

The third EDI category is race and/or culture. As before, we present the responses to the issue of identity, followed by a table of descriptions (supplied by some of the participants). This is followed by whether the participant felt affected in the PsychoPy^® community by that identity. Finally, we summarise the participants responses to items listed under treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

identity

figure

Barplot of responses to: 'Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you part of a race/culture that is potentially discriminated against?'

table

Summary of responses to race and/or culture
Question	N = 2301
Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you part of a race and/or culture that is potentially discriminated against?
Yes	42 (18%)
No	184 (80%)
(missing)	4 (1.7%)
1n (%)

descriptions

If participants chose yes as an answer above, they were given the opportunity to describe their race(s) and/or culture(s), though doing so was optional. For those who did, the table below lists the descriptions they provided. The “NA” in the table refers to those who either did not see the question or chose not to supply a description.

The question was as follows:

Feel free to describe your race and/or culture here (or not)

felt affected

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

Do you feel that your race and/or culture has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?

figure

Frequency barplot of responses to the following statement: 'Do you feel that your race and/or culture has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?' If participants chose to respond, they could respond with either 'yes' or 'no.'

table

Summary of responses to whether participants felt affected by their race and/or culture
Question	N = 2301
Do you feel that your race and/or culture has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?
Yes	3 (1.3%)
No	39 (17%)
(missing)	188 (82%)
1n (%)

Important

Important: The question directly above regarding race and/our culture determined whether or not the participant saw the respective items directly below regarding treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

treatment, self-regard, isolation

The following statements were seen only by the subset of participants noted above. Specifically, they were restricted to the three who replied yes to the question asking them whether they had felt that their racial and/or cultural identity has affected their interactions with the PsychoPy^® community. Of those, three provided responses, seen below.

The exact questions are listed in the verbal summary after the visualization.

figure

Stacked frequency barplots of responses to statements on race/culture, categorised into the following: treatment by others, self-regard, and isolation.

table

Statistics for responses to statements regarding race and/or culture
	spanVar
Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)	N = 230
I feel that I have been negatively perceived [due to my race and/or culture]
Mean	4.7
SD	1.53
Median	5.0
Q1, Q3	3.0, 6.0
Min, Max	3, 6
I have felt the need to hide [my race and/or culture] in order to be taken seriously
Mean	4.0
SD	1.00
Median	4.0
Q1, Q3	3.0, 5.0
Min, Max	3, 5
My questions and/or contributions have been ignored at times [due to my race and/or culture]
Mean	4.0
SD	2.00
Median	4.0
Q1, Q3	2.0, 6.0
Min, Max	2, 6
I have been the target of intentionally derisive comments [due to my race and/or culture]
Mean	1.7
SD	0.58
Median	2.0
Q1, Q3	1.0, 2.0
Min, Max	1, 2
[Due to my race and/or culture] I have been the target of often unintentional, but subtly disdainful comments that are cumulatively hurtful
Mean	4.0
SD	2.00
Median	4.0
Q1, Q3	2.0, 6.0
Min, Max	2, 6
[Due to my race and/or culture] I have doubted my own potential
Mean	5.7
SD	0.58
Median	6.0
Q1, Q3	5.0, 6.0
Min, Max	5, 6
[Due to my race and/or culture] I have feared being negatively judged by others, which has discouraged me from trying out new skills
Mean	5.3
SD	1.15
Median	6.0
Q1, Q3	4.0, 6.0
Min, Max	4, 6
I wish I saw more people in the community that were similar [in race and/or culture] to me
Mean	6.0
SD	1.00
Median	6.0
Q1, Q3	5.0, 7.0
Min, Max	5, 7

disability / neurodivergence

The fourth EDI category is disability and/or neurodivergence. As above, we present the responses to the issue of identity, followed by a table of descriptions (supplied by some of the participants). This is followed by whether the participant felt affected in the PsychoPy^® community by that identity. Finally, we summarise the participants responses to items listed under treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

identity

figure

Frequency barplot of responses to the following question: 'Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you disabled and/or neurodivergent (i.e., visible or invisible; e.g., blind, paralysed, cerebral palsy, ASD, ADHD)?' If participants chose to respond, they could respond with either 'yes' or 'no.'

table

Summary of responses to disability and/or neurodivergence
Question	N = 2301
Do you, or might others who know you well, consider you disabled and/or neurodivergent (i.e., visible or invisible; e.g., blind, paralysed, cerebral palsy, ASD, ADHD)?
Yes	28 (12%)
No	199 (87%)
(missing)	3 (1.3%)
1n (%)

descriptions

If participants chose yes as an answer above, they were given the opportunity to describe their disability(-ies) and/or neurodivergence, though doing so was optional. For those who did, the table below lists the descriptions they provided. The “NA” in the table refers to those who either did not see the question or chose not to supply a description.

The question was as follows:

Feel free to describe your disabled and/or neurodivergent status (or not)

felt affected

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

Do you feel that your disabled and/or neurodivergent status has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?

figure

Frequency barplot of responses to the following statement: 'Do you feel that your disabled and/or neurodivergent status has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?' If participants chose to respond, they could respond with either 'yes' or 'no.'

table

Summary of responses to whether participants felt affected by their disability and/or neurodivergence
Question	N = 2301
Do you feel that your disabled and/or neurodivergent status has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?
Yes	6 (2.6%)
No	22 (9.6%)
(missing)	202 (88%)
1n (%)

Important

Important: The question directly above regarding disability and/or neurodivergence determined whether or not the participant saw the respective items directly below regarding treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

treatment, self-regard, isolation

The following statements were seen only by the subset of participants noted above. Specifically, they were restricted to the six who replied yes to the question asking them whether they had felt that their disability and/or neurodivergence has affected their interactions with the PsychoPy^® community. Of those, six provided responses, seen below.

The exact questions are listed in the verbal summary after the visualization.

figure

Stacked frequency barplots of responses to disability/neurodivergence, categorised into the following: treatment by others, self-regard, and isolation.

table

Statistics for responses to statements regarding disability
	spanVar
Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)	N = 230
I feel that I have been negatively perceived [due to my disability and/or neurodivergence]
Mean	2.2
SD	1.94
Median	1.5
Q1, Q3	1.0, 2.0
Min, Max	1, 6
I have felt the need to hide [my disability and/or neurodivergence] in order to be taken seriously
Mean	2.0
SD	1.55
Median	1.5
Q1, Q3	1.0, 2.0
Min, Max	1, 5
My questions and/or contributions have been ignored at times [due to my disability and/or neurodivergence]
Mean	1.5
SD	0.55
Median	1.5
Q1, Q3	1.0, 2.0
Min, Max	1, 2
I have been the target of intentionally derisive comments [due to my disability and/or neurodivergence]
Mean	1.5
SD	0.84
Median	1.0
Q1, Q3	1.0, 2.0
Min, Max	1, 3
[Due to my disability and/or neurodivergence] I have been the target of often unintentional, but subtly disdainful comments that are cumulatively hurtful
Mean	1.2
SD	0.41
Median	1.0
Q1, Q3	1.0, 1.0
Min, Max	1, 2
[Due to my disability and/or neurodivergence] I have doubted my own potential
Mean	5.0
SD	2.10
Median	5.5
Q1, Q3	5.0, 6.0
Min, Max	1, 7
[Due to my disability and/or neurodivergence] I have feared being negatively judged by others, which has discouraged me from trying out new skills
Mean	4.5
SD	2.26
Median	5.0
Q1, Q3	3.0, 6.0
Min, Max	1, 7
I wish I saw more people in the community that were similar [in disability and/or neurodivergence] to me
Mean	4.5
SD	2.95
Median	5.5
Q1, Q3	1.0, 7.0
Min, Max	1, 7

written-English language dominance

The fifth EDI category is written-English language dominance. As before, we present the responses to the issue of identity, followed by a table of descriptions (supplied by some of the participants). This is followed by whether the participant felt affected in the PsychoPy^® community by that identity. Finally, we summarise the participants responses to items listed under treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

identity

figure

Frequency barplot of responses to the following question: 'Is your dominant (preferred) written language English?' If participants chose to respond, they could respond with either 'yes' or 'no.'

table

Summary of responses to written-English language dominance
Question	N = 2301
Is your dominant (preferred) written language English?
Yes	140 (61%)
No	89 (39%)
(missing)	1 (0.4%)
1n (%)

descriptions

If participants chose no as an answer above, they were given the opportunity to describe their dominant language, though doing so was optional. For those who did, the table below lists the descriptions they provided. The “NA” in the table refers to those who either did not see the question or chose not to supply a description.

The question was as follows:

Feel free to type in your dominant language (or not)

felt affected

The sections directly below summarise, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

Do you feel that your dominant language has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?

figure

Frequency barplot of responses to the following statement: 'Do you feel that your dominant language has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?' If participants chose to respond, they could respond with either 'yes' or 'no.'

table

Summary of responses to whether participants felt affected by their non-English written-language dominance
Question	N = 2301
Do you feel that your dominant language has affected your interactions with the PsychoPy community or software ecosystem?
Yes	10 (4.3%)
No	79 (34%)
(missing)	141 (61%)
1n (%)

Important

Important: The question directly above regarding language dominance in written English determined whether or not the participant saw the respective items directly below regarding treatment (by others), self-regard, and isolation.

treatment, self-regard, isolation

The following statements were seen only by the subset of participants noted above. Specifically, they were restricted to the ten who replied yes to the question asking them whether they had felt that their language dominance has affected their interactions with the PsychoPy^® community. Of those, ten provided responses, seen below.

The exact questions are listed in the verbal summary after the visualization.

figure

Stacked frequency barplots of responses to language dominance, categorised by the following: treatment by others, self-regard, and isolation.

table

Statistics for responses to statements regarding dominant language
	spanVar
Statement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)	N = 230
I feel that I have been negatively perceived [due to my dominant written language]
Mean	2.8
SD	2.10
Median	2.5
Q1, Q3	1.0, 4.0
Min, Max	1, 7
I have felt the need to hide [my dominant written language] in order to be taken seriously
Mean	3.0
SD	2.45
Median	2.0
Q1, Q3	1.0, 5.0
Min, Max	1, 7
My questions and/or contributions have been ignored at times [due to my dominant written language]
Mean	2.2
SD	1.81
Median	2.0
Q1, Q3	1.0, 2.0
Min, Max	1, 7
I have been the target of intentionally derisive comments [due to my dominant written language]
Mean	1.5
SD	1.08
Median	1.0
Q1, Q3	1.0, 1.0
Min, Max	1, 4
[Due to my dominant written language] I have been the target of often unintentional, but subtly disdainful comments that are cumulatively hurtful
Mean	1.5
SD	1.27
Median	1.0
Q1, Q3	1.0, 1.0
Min, Max	1, 5
[Due to my dominant written language] I have doubted my own potential
Mean	2.5
SD	1.72
Median	2.0
Q1, Q3	1.0, 4.0
Min, Max	1, 6
[Due to my dominant written language] I have feared being negatively judged by others, which has discouraged me from trying out new skills
Mean	2.4
SD	1.96
Median	1.0
Q1, Q3	1.0, 4.0
Min, Max	1, 6
I wish I saw more people in the community who used my language
Mean	4.7
SD	2.83
Median	6.5
Q1, Q3	1.0, 7.0
Min, Max	1, 7

participant background

The first few items on the survey collected information about general background demographics, including participants’ career status, the role they typically play in their usage of PsychoPy^®.

Unlike the items above that directly address dimensions of equity, diversity, and inclusion, everyone was able to answer the questions below. However, we can still view each item with respect to whether responses varied according to the various groups that respondents identified with.

These are covered in the subsections below.

career status

This section summarises, both visually and verbally, the answer to the following question:

Roughly speaking, what is your career status?

Participants had to choose from one of the following:

Researcher - early career (e.g. PhD, postdoc)
Researcher - mid career (e.g. Assistant/Associate Professor)
Researcher - senior (e.g. Full Professor)
Technical - junior
Technical - senior

everyone

The visualization below presents responses in descending order of frequency.

figure

Descending frequency barplot of the responses to the following question: 'Roughly speaking, what is your career status?'

table

Summary of responses to career status
Question	N = 2301
Roughly speaking, what is your career status?
Researcher - early career	104 (45%)
Researcher - mid career	63 (27%)
Researcher - senior	30 (13%)
Technical - junior	6 (2.6%)
Technical - senior	18 (7.8%)
(missing)	9 (3.9%)
1n (%)

interactions