Psychology Has a WEIRD Problem
How a tiny slice of humanity became the basis for what psychology calls “human nature”
Psychology likes to ask very large questions.
How do humans think? What makes people cooperate? How do children understand other minds? Why do we conform? What makes us happy? How do we perceive the world? How do we experience ourselves? What does anxiety look like? What does depression feel like? How does the brain respond to social information?
There is only one slight problem.
For a remarkably large portion of psychology's history, the people answering those questions have represented a remarkably small portion of humanity.
They have disproportionately been WEIRD:
Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic.
And often, even that description makes the research pool sound more diverse than it actually was. A great deal of psychological knowledge has historically come from people who were not merely Western, but American; not merely educated, but university students; and not merely university students, but students sitting in introductory psychology courses who participated in experiments because their course required or rewarded it.
Then researchers wrote papers about people.
Not American university students.
Not middle-class residents of industrialized democracies.
People.
Humans.
The mind.
Human nature.
That leap—from these participants behaved this way to people behave this way—is the heart of psychology's WEIRD problem.
And it has enormous consequences for what psychology can legitimately claim to know.
Where did “WEIRD” come from?
The acronym became famous through a 2010 paper by anthropologist Joseph Henrich and psychologists Steven J. Heine and Ara Norenzayan with an unforgettable title:
“The Weirdest People in the World?”
Their argument was not simply that psychology needed “more diversity” in some vague sense. It was considerably more disruptive.
They argued that behavioural scientists had constructed theories about the human species using samples drawn disproportionately from societies that were not only unrepresentative of humanity, but appeared to be psychologically unusual on a number of dimensions (Henrich et al., 2010).
The problem had already been documented particularly starkly by developmental psychologist Jeffrey Jensen Arnett in 2008.
Arnett examined research published from 2003 to 2007 across six leading American Psychological Association journals. Henrich and colleagues summarized the resulting numbers: approximately 68% of participants were from the United States, while 96% came from Western industrialized countries. Those countries contained only about 12% of the global population at the time. Around 99% of first authors in the journals examined were based at Western universities.
Put differently, nearly the entire species was being described using data disproportionately supplied by a very particular corner of it.
And the bias became narrower still once researchers entered the Western countries themselves. Henrich and colleagues noted that in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, roughly two-thirds of American samples in the data Arnett examined consisted entirely of undergraduate psychology students.
That is a very specific human being.
Young.
Usually literate.
Usually enrolled in higher education.
Living in an industrialized society.
Familiar with formal testing.
Accustomed to interacting with institutions and strangers.
Often financially secure enough to attend university.
And embedded in a culture with particular ideas about independence, individuality, achievement, choice, privacy, relationships, morality, competition and the self.
None of those characteristics makes someone a bad research participant.
The problem begins when researchers forget that they are characteristics at all.
The problem is not that WEIRD participants are “wrong”
This distinction matters enormously.
The WEIRD critique does not mean that research conducted in Canada, the United States, Britain, Germany or Australia is inherently invalid.
It does not mean Westerners are somehow psychologically defective.
And it certainly does not mean every result obtained from a Western university student disappears when you travel elsewhere.
The scientific issue is generalizability.
Suppose researchers recruit 200 university students in Toronto and discover that participants tend to behave in a particular way.
If the experiment is well designed, they may have excellent evidence that these participants behaved that way under those conditions.
What they do not automatically have is evidence that:
humans behave that way.
Those are different claims.
Internal validity asks something like, Did this study convincingly establish the effect it claims to have found?
External validity asks something different: To whom, where and under what conditions does this finding apply?
A beautifully controlled experiment can have excellent internal validity while providing very limited evidence about the behaviour of eight billion human beings.
The WEIRD problem is therefore not simply a diversity problem.
It is a problem of inference.
And WEIRD people may actually be… weird
Henrich, Heine and Norenzayan went further than pointing out that Western samples were disproportionately common.
They reviewed evidence suggesting that WEIRD populations frequently appeared toward the extremes of the human distribution on psychological phenomena ranging from self-concept and reasoning to cooperation and visual perception.
That is what made the critique so destabilizing.
If your sample were a random 12% of humanity, generalizing from it would already require caution.
But if the 12% you sampled happened to behave unusually on the phenomenon you were studying, the problem becomes much larger.
Later work has continued to emphasize that psychological and cultural distance between populations is substantial and multidimensional. Muthukrishna and colleagues have argued that “WEIRD versus non-WEIRD” is itself too crude a binary: societies can differ from one another along many cultural dimensions, and researchers should think in terms of degrees of psychological and cultural distance rather than imagining one homogeneous West and one homogeneous “rest of the world” (Muthukrishna et al., 2020).
That nuance is crucial.
Because “non-WEIRD people” are not a population.
Humanity outside the United States is not one enormous control group.
Take fairness, for example
Imagine that someone gives you the equivalent of $100 and tells you to divide it between yourself and another person.
You decide how much to offer.
The other person then has a choice. If they accept your offer, you both keep your respective shares. If they reject it, neither of you receives anything.
This is the ultimatum game, one of behavioural economics' most famous experimental paradigms.
Experiments with university populations helped establish influential findings about fairness, punishment and cooperation. People often offer considerably more than strict economic self-interest predicts, and recipients sometimes reject very unequal offers—even though rejecting means receiving nothing.
But what happens when researchers stop recruiting university students?
Henrich and a large international research team conducted economic games across 15 small-scale societies with dramatically different social and economic systems.
They did not find one simple, universal behavioural pattern.
There was substantial variation between communities, and features of everyday social life—such as market integration and the importance of cooperation in local economic activity—helped explain some of that variation (Henrich et al., 2005).
This changes the scientific question.
Instead of asking:
“What is the human preference for fairness?”
we may need to ask:
“How do human capacities for fairness, reciprocity and punishment develop within particular social institutions, economic systems and cultural environments?”
That is a richer question.
And potentially a much more accurate one.
Culture can reach surprisingly deep into cognition
For a long time, psychologists sometimes treated culture as though it decorated an otherwise universal psychological machine.
The important cognitive processes were presumed to operate underneath.
Culture merely changed the content.
People might eat different foods, follow different religions or speak different languages, but perception, reasoning, motivation and the self were assumed to work essentially the same way.
Cross-cultural psychology complicated that picture.
Richard Nisbett, Kaiping Peng, Incheol Choi and Ara Norenzayan reviewed evidence suggesting systematic differences in cognitive tendencies between East Asian and Western populations. Western participants were more likely, on average, to employ relatively analytic styles of cognition—focusing on individual objects, categories and rules—whereas East Asian participants showed relatively more holistic cognition, attending more strongly to relationships, context and the surrounding field (Nisbett et al., 2001).
This did not mean that “Asian brains think one way and Western brains think another.”
Cultures are not biological species.
Nor do individuals neatly conform to their population averages.
But the findings challenged something psychology had often taken for granted: even processes that feel like basic, obvious ways of reasoning may partly reflect the social environments in which cognition develops.
The research on the self is equally important.
Western psychological theories have often imagined individuals as relatively bounded, autonomous units possessing stable internal traits, preferences and identities.
Yet Hazel Markus and Shinobu Kitayama's influential work on independent and interdependent models of the self argued that this conception fits some cultural worlds considerably better than others. In more interdependent cultural contexts, relationships, social obligations and one's position relative to others may be much more constitutive of the self itself (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
When psychology builds a model of “the self” primarily from populations in which independence is unusually culturally important, it risks taking one cultural model of personhood and mistaking it for the architecture of personhood itself.
Even “East versus West” is far too simple
Once psychologists recognized the inadequacy of studying only Americans, a somewhat predictable solution emerged:
Study Americans and East Asians.
That is better.
It is not remotely sufficient.
China contains more than a billion people, enormous linguistic and regional variation, different subsistence histories, urban and rural environments, socioeconomic strata and local cultures.
Calling someone “Chinese” does not eliminate those differences.
One striking example came from Thomas Talhelm and colleagues, who studied 1,162 Han Chinese participants across six locations. They reported systematic psychological differences between areas historically dominated by rice agriculture and areas dominated by wheat agriculture, with participants from rice-growing areas showing greater interdependence and more holistic cognition on their measures (Talhelm et al., 2014).
The study's proposed causal explanation has itself attracted debate, which is exactly what healthy science should produce.
But its broader lesson is difficult to miss:
Countries are not cultures.
Neither “American” nor “Chinese” identifies a psychologically uniform population.
Nor does “African,” “Latin American,” “European,” “Asian,” “Indigenous” or “Western.”
The same problem exists within the United States. Race, socioeconomic status, education, religion, region, immigration experience and community ecology can shape experience substantially. A review of more than 26,000 empirical articles in major cognitive, developmental and social psychology journals found that research explicitly attending to race remained remarkably uncommon across decades, particularly in cognitive psychology (Roberts et al., 2020).
Diversifying psychology therefore requires more than adding countries to a spreadsheet.
Developmental psychology has an especially awkward version of this problem
If there is one field in which context should obviously matter, it is developmental psychology.
Children develop somewhere.
They grow up in particular families, languages, communities, economic systems, educational environments and caregiving arrangements.
Yet developmental psychology has historically relied heavily on WEIRD children.
Nielsen, Haun, Kärtner and Legare reviewed the field and concluded that high-impact developmental journals remained heavily skewed toward WEIRD populations, despite years of discussion about the problem. They warned that culturally specific developmental patterns can consequently be mistaken for universal characteristics of childhood (Nielsen et al., 2017).
Consider how differently childhood can be organized around the world.
Some infants spend much of the day physically attached to caregivers.
Others spend substantial time in cribs, strollers, playpens or separate bedrooms.
Some children regularly care for younger siblings.
Some primarily interact with adults.
Some receive constant verbal instruction.
Others are expected to learn largely through observation and participation.
Some are encouraged to assert preferences.
Others are taught that maturity involves noticing and accommodating the needs of the group.
The developmental psychology in the supplied textbook makes precisely this broader point: child-rearing systems vary substantially across cultures, while successful development occurs under multiple arrangements.
If researchers study only one of those childhoods, how can they know which developmental patterns reflect universal human maturation and which reflect adaptation to a particular developmental environment?
They cannot.
Not without comparison.
Ironically, cross-cultural research can help us find genuine universals
This is one of the most important—and most frequently misunderstood—parts of the WEIRD debate.
Acknowledging cultural variability does not require believing that everything is culturally relative.
Quite the opposite.
You cannot convincingly demonstrate a human universal without looking at humans who live in different circumstances.
Consider children's understanding of other minds.
False-belief tasks examine whether children understand that another person can hold a belief that differs from reality. Much early developmental research on this ability came from Western children.
Tara Callaghan and colleagues deliberately tested children using a standardized procedure across five very different cultural settings: Canada, India, Peru, Samoa and Thailand.
Despite dramatic cultural differences, children in all five populations crossed the false-belief milestone at approximately the same age—around five years old (Callaghan et al., 2005).
That is a much stronger basis for discussing a potentially widespread developmental pattern than showing the same thing repeatedly in Canadian university laboratory preschool samples.
The same principle appears in emotion research.
Jessica Tracy and David Matsumoto examined spontaneous expressions following victory and defeat among sighted, blind and congenitally blind athletes from more than 30 nations. Pride-related behaviours appeared remarkably consistently after success, including among congenitally blind athletes who could not simply have learned the display by visually copying others. Cultural variation appeared in the regulation of shame displays, but the broader pattern offered unusual evidence for widely shared components of emotional expression (Tracy & Matsumoto, 2008).
This is what cross-cultural science can do.
It can tell us where humanity differs.
And it can give us much stronger evidence about where humanity does not.
The WEIRD problem has reached neuroscience too
Brains do not float outside culture.
Human brains develop inside bodies that inhabit environments.
Education changes experience.
Literacy changes experience.
Language changes experience.
Nutrition changes development.
Poverty changes stress exposure.
Urbanization changes sensory environments.
Technology changes behaviour.
Social institutions change what people repeatedly attend to, practice and value.
Yet neuroscience has often inherited psychology's sampling habits.
Falk and colleagues argued in 2013 that neuroscience needed to borrow insights from population science and think much more carefully about what constitutes a representative brain. A brain-imaging sample recruited near an expensive MRI facility at a major research university should not quietly become “the human brain” in scientific prose (Falk et al., 2013).
The textbook makes the same problem concrete in discussing research on the non-WEIRD brain, noting that much neuroscience has historically investigated WEIRD populations and highlighting portable fNIRS technology as one route toward studying neural processes in populations researchers have traditionally struggled to reach.
Cultural neuroscience has already documented population differences in neural activity associated with several cognitive and social processes. A quantitative meta-analysis of 35 fMRI studies, for example, identified differences in patterns of neural activation between East Asian and Western participants across social and nonsocial tasks (Han & Ma, 2014).
Again, the conclusion is not that humanity consists of culturally predetermined “types of brains.”
The conclusion is subtler and more interesting:
Neural function develops through interaction with experience.
If human experience varies, neuroscience needs samples capable of detecting what that variation does—and does not—change.
The optical illusion everyone loves to cite—and why it teaches an even better lesson now
One of the most famous examples in discussions of WEIRD psychology is the Müller-Lyer illusion.
Two lines of identical length are surrounded by differently oriented fins, making one line appear longer than the other.
Beginning decades before the term WEIRD existed, researchers documented cross-cultural differences in susceptibility to geometric illusions. Segall, Campbell and Herskovits reported substantial differences across 15 societies and proposed that visual environments and culturally patterned habits of perceptual inference might partly explain them (Segall et al., 1963).
Henrich and colleagues later used this literature as one illustration of why even apparently elementary perception should not automatically be assumed culturally invariant.
And then science did what science is supposed to do.
It kept investigating.
A major recent review by Dorsa Amir and Chaz Firestone re-examined the Müller-Lyer literature and challenged the dramatic claim that exposure to “carpentered” Western environments explains the illusion. They argued that the classic cross-cultural evidence is considerably less consistent than later retellings implied and pointed to evidence for Müller-Lyer-like effects across very different sensory and biological contexts (Amir & Firestone, 2025).
This does not make the WEIRD critique weaker.
It demonstrates the entire point.
The answer to poor generalization is not to replace:
“Western finding = human universal”
with:
“cross-cultural difference = culture caused it.”
Both are shortcuts.
Good cross-cultural psychology requires rigorous sampling, comparable methodology, measurement validity, replication and serious engagement with alternative explanations.
The goal is not to make every psychological phenomenon cultural.
It is to actually discover which ones are.
Psychology's participant pool has improved—but not nearly enough
One might reasonably assume that the enormous attention attracted by the 2010 WEIRD paper transformed psychological sampling.
There has been progress.
But considerably less than the popularity of the acronym might suggest.
Thalmayer, Toscanelli and Arnett returned to the six journals examined in Arnett's original research and analyzed publications from 2014 through 2018.
American dominance had decreased somewhat: authors and participants were now, on average, a little over 60% American rather than over 70%.
But most of the increase in international representation came from other English-speaking and Western European countries.
The authors estimated that the populations now well represented by those journals accounted for approximately 11% of humanity, leaving roughly 89% of the global population still severely neglected. Samples and authors from the majority world remained only a tiny fraction of the literature (Thalmayer et al., 2021).
So psychology became somewhat less American.
It did not suddenly become global.
A 2022 Nature Reviews Psychology editorial summarized the uncomfortable state of affairs neatly: despite widespread awareness of WEIRD sampling, Western perspectives and populations continued to dominate psychological science.
The acronym succeeded brilliantly as a conversation starter.
Changing the structure of science has proved harder.
Because the real WEIRD problem is larger than the participant pool
Imagine an American research team develops a theory in New York.
They create the concepts.
They construct the questionnaire.
They decide what outcome matters.
They formulate the hypotheses.
They translate the questionnaire into another language.
They recruit 500 participants in Kenya.
They analyze the data in New York.
They interpret what the Kenyan participants' answers “mean.”
They publish the article in an American journal.
The participants are now non-WEIRD.
But is the science truly non-WEIRD?
Not necessarily.
Adeyemi Adetula and colleagues have made precisely this argument regarding psychological research in Africa. Psychology frequently asks whether theories developed in North America and Europe generalize to Africa, rather than allowing African contexts to generate theories that psychology might then generalize from (Adetula et al., 2022).
That distinction is profound.
A genuinely global psychology cannot simply treat the rest of humanity as an enormous replication sample for ideas generated in wealthy Western universities.
Different communities may reveal psychological phenomena researchers in those universities never thought to measure.
They may conceptualize relationships differently.
They may divide emotions into different meaningful categories.
They may possess concepts for interpersonal obligations that translate poorly into English.
They may understand distress through social, bodily, spiritual or relational frameworks unfamiliar to Western clinical theories.
They may ask entirely different psychological questions.
Sampling people without sampling their ideas still leaves psychology intellectually narrow.
This becomes particularly important in mental health
Psychology's WEIRD problem is not confined to amusing laboratory experiments.
It can influence what clinicians measure, diagnose and treat.
Many widely used psychological questionnaires were developed within particular linguistic and cultural environments.
Translating the words does not automatically prove that the underlying scale measures exactly the same construct in another population.
Psychometric researchers therefore examine measurement invariance: whether an instrument functions sufficiently similarly across groups to make comparisons meaningful.
Sometimes it does.
Sometimes only partially.
For example, Bibi and colleagues compared the widely used DASS-21 measure of depression, anxiety and stress in German and Pakistani samples. The scale showed substantial evidence of cross-cultural validity, but invariance varied by subscale, leading the authors to recommend caution in direct comparisons between the populations (Bibi et al., 2020).
That is exactly the kind of research psychology needs.
The scientifically responsible response is neither:
“Western psychological measures work everywhere.”
nor:
“Psychological constructs are completely incomparable across cultures.”
It is:
Test it.
The same principle applies to psychotherapy.
A meta-analysis by Hall and colleagues examined 78 studies involving nearly 14,000 participants and found evidence supporting culturally adapted psychological interventions while also emphasizing major gaps in research on culturally specific psychopathology and treatment processes (Hall et al., 2016).
Culture does not magically invalidate psychotherapy.
But neither should treatment models created and tested in one cultural environment be assumed to transfer unchanged everywhere else.
WEIRD is also not a synonym for “white”
This is worth making explicit.
WEIRD describes a cluster of social and institutional characteristics, not a race.
A person can be Western but not rich.
Educated but not Western.
Rich but living in a nondemocratic state.
Highly industrialized but embedded in cultural institutions quite different from Northern Europe or North America.
Likewise, racial and ethnic diversity within WEIRD countries remains scientifically important.
An African American family in Mississippi, a wealthy French family in Paris, an Indigenous family in northern Canada, a recent Pakistani immigrant family in Toronto and a fourth-generation Japanese American family in California cannot simply be collapsed into one psychologically interchangeable category because everyone happens to live inside wealthy democracies.
And neither can people outside those countries be collapsed into “non-WEIRD.”
The acronym is best understood as a warning label, not a taxonomy of humanity.
Muthukrishna and colleagues' work on cultural distance makes this point particularly well: psychological difference exists along continua, and the useful comparison depends on the phenomenon researchers are trying to understand (Muthukrishna et al., 2020).
Why did psychology become so WEIRD in the first place?
There is no need for a conspiracy theory.
Convenience explains a great deal.
Psychologists generally work at universities.
Universities contain students.
Students are easy to recruit.
They live nearby.
They speak the researchers' language.
They can complete questionnaires.
They can understand experimental instructions.
They often participate for course credit.
Universities in wealthy countries also possess the laboratories, research assistants, grant funding, ethics infrastructure and technology needed to conduct large research programs.
Academic publishing then amplifies those inequalities.
Prestigious journals have historically been concentrated in wealthy Western institutions and published overwhelmingly in English. Researchers working at highly resourced universities have greater access to funding, international conferences, expensive equipment and professional networks.
The result is a scientific feedback loop.
The populations easiest for powerful institutions to study generate the evidence.
That evidence generates the theories.
Those theories generate the next experiments.
Those experiments generate the textbooks.
And eventually, culturally situated observations become so familiar that they stop looking culturally situated at all.
They simply become psychology.
Even psychology's famous “replication crisis” does not completely solve this
Over the past decade, psychological science has devoted enormous energy to replication, preregistration, open data, larger samples and stronger statistical practices.
Those reforms are important.
But imagine that 30 laboratories successfully replicate an effect using 20,000 participants.
That sounds extraordinarily convincing.
Now imagine that nearly every laboratory is located in North America and Western Europe.
You have dramatically improved your evidence that the effect is reproducible within those research environments.
You have not necessarily established that it is universal.
Replication asks:
Does the finding happen again?
Cross-cultural generalization asks:
Where does the finding happen, for whom, and under what conditions?
Psychology needs both.
A perfectly replicable culturally local phenomenon is still culturally local.
So what should psychology do?
The solution is not simply to impose demographic quotas on every experiment.
If a researcher wants to know whether a particular intervention helps Canadian university students, Canadian university students may be exactly the right population.
The first change is much simpler:
Researchers need to say who they actually studied.
A finding from American adults should be described as a finding from American adults unless evidence supports broader generalization.
A finding from university students should not become a statement about “people” by grammatical magic.
But psychology should also make diversity scientifically useful rather than treating it as administrative housekeeping.
Researchers can deliberately choose populations that test competing theoretical predictions. They can conduct multi-site studies across meaningfully different settings. They can test whether instruments function equivalently across languages and communities. They can report socioeconomic, educational, geographic and cultural characteristics instead of treating nationality as sufficient. They can build long-term partnerships with researchers and communities outside wealthy Western institutions. And critically, scholars from underrepresented regions need intellectual authority over the questions, theories and interpretations—not merely responsibility for recruiting participants.
As Apicella, Norenzayan and Henrich argued a decade after the original WEIRD paper, human diversity should not be treated as an inconvenience researchers need to control away. It is an extraordinary scientific opportunity: variation across ecologies, institutions and cultural histories allows psychologists to test theories that homogeneous samples simply cannot distinguish (Apicella et al., 2020).
The goal is not a psychology without universals
There is a seductive mistake lurking on both sides of this conversation.
One version says:
Human beings are fundamentally the same, so culture does not matter very much.
The opposite says:
Human beings differ across cultures, so psychology can never discover anything universal.
Neither follows from the evidence.
Humans plainly share an extraordinary amount.
We share evolutionary history.
We share nervous systems.
We develop attachments.
We communicate.
We learn from others.
We experience threats and rewards.
We categorize.
We remember.
We forget.
We cooperate.
We compete.
We form relationships.
We experience suffering.
We construct meaning.
At the same time, these capacities develop inside radically different social worlds.
Culture can influence when psychological capacities are expressed, how they are interpreted, what situations activate them, what behaviours are considered desirable and even what categories people use to understand their own experience.
The scientifically interesting task is therefore not choosing between human nature and culture.
It is figuring out how they interact.
And that requires studying humans.
Not merely the humans who happen to live near psychology departments.
Psychology's weirdest assumption may have been that its participants were ordinary
There is something almost charmingly strange about the history of this problem.
Imagine an anthropologist arriving in a remote society, interviewing 40 people from one unusually privileged social group and writing:
“Humans believe…”
Psychologists would immediately recognize the methodological problem.
Yet psychology spent decades doing something surprisingly similar.
The field recruited people from an extraordinarily specific historical environment—highly educated residents of industrialized, relatively wealthy democracies, frequently from universities in North America—and repeatedly treated them as transparent windows into the species.
Henrich, Heine and Norenzayan gave that population a memorable name in 2010.
But the importance of the WEIRD critique is not the acronym.
It is the question the acronym forces psychology to ask whenever it makes a claim:
Who exactly did we study?
And then:
What gives us the right to generalize beyond them?
Sometimes, further evidence will show that the finding travels astonishingly well across languages, cultures, economies and ways of life.
That gives us a genuine candidate for something deeply shared in human psychology.
Sometimes it will change dramatically across contexts.
That reveals something equally important: the extraordinary flexibility of the human mind.
Sometimes the categories themselves will turn out to have been poorly chosen.
And sometimes researchers elsewhere will ask a question that psychology's traditional centres never thought to ask.
All four outcomes make the science better.
The purpose of studying human diversity is not to fracture psychology into thousands of unrelated local psychologies.
It is to build a psychology capable of explaining both the unity and the diversity of Homo sapiens.
Because if psychology wants to call itself the science of human behaviour and mind, eventually “human” has to mean humanity.
References
Adetula, A., Forscher, P. S., Basnight-Brown, D., Azouaghe, S., & IJzerman, H. (2022). Psychology should generalize from—not just to—Africa. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1, 370–371. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00070-y
Amir, D., & Firestone, C. (2025). Is visual perception WEIRD? The Müller-Lyer illusion and the cultural byproduct hypothesis. Psychological Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000549
Apicella, C., Norenzayan, A., & Henrich, J. (2020). Beyond WEIRD: A review of the last decade and a look ahead to the global laboratory of the future. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(5), 319–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.07.015
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.63.7.602
Barrett, H. C. (2022). Psychology within and without the state. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 461–487. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-110248
Bibi, A., Lin, M., Zhang, X. C., & Margraf, J. (2020). Psychometric properties and measurement invariance of Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS-21) across cultures. International Journal of Psychology, 55(6), 916–925. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12671
Callaghan, T., Rochat, P., Lillard, A., Claux, M. L., Odden, H., Itakura, S., Tapanya, S., & Singh, S. (2005). Synchrony in the onset of mental-state reasoning: Evidence from five cultures. Psychological Science, 16(5), 378–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01544.x
Falk, E. B., Hyde, L. W., Mitchell, C., Faul, J., Gonzalez, R., Heitzeg, M. M., Keating, D. P., Langa, K. M., Martz, M. E., Maslowsky, J., Morrison, F. J., Noll, D. C., Patrick, M. E., Pfeffer, F. T., Reuter-Lorenz, P. A., Thomason, M. E., Davis-Kean, P., Monk, C. S., & Schulenberg, J. (2013). What is a representative brain? Neuroscience meets population science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(44), 17615–17622. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1310134110
Hall, G. C. N., Ibaraki, A. Y., Huang, E. R., Marti, C. N., & Stice, E. (2016). A meta-analysis of cultural adaptations of psychological interventions. Behavior Therapy, 47(6), 993–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2016.09.005
Han, S., & Ma, Y. (2014). Cultural differences in human brain activity: A quantitative meta-analysis. NeuroImage, 99, 293–300.
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., McElreath, R., et al. (2005). “Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(6), 795–815. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000142
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.
Muthukrishna, M., Bell, A. V., Henrich, J., Curtin, C. M., Gedranovich, A., McInerney, J., & Thue, B. (2020). Beyond Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) psychology: Measuring and mapping scales of cultural and psychological distance. Psychological Science, 31(6), 678–701. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620916782
Nielsen, M., Haun, D., Kärtner, J., & Legare, C. H. (2017). The persistent sampling bias in developmental psychology: A call to action. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 162, 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.04.017
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291
Rad, M. S., Martingano, A. J., & Ginges, J. (2018). Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11401–11405. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1721165115
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/10.1177/1745691620927709
Segall, M. H., Campbell, D. T., & Herskovits, M. J. (1963). Cultural differences in the perception of geometric illusions. Science, 139(3556), 769–771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.139.3556.769
Talhelm, T., Zhang, X., Oishi, S., Shimin, C., Duan, D., Lan, X., & Kitayama, S. (2014). Large-scale psychological differences within China explained by rice versus wheat agriculture. Science, 344(6184), 603–608. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246850
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/amp0000622
Tracy, J. L., & Matsumoto, D. (2008). The spontaneous expression of pride and shame: Evidence for biologically innate nonverbal displays. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(33), 11655–11660. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802686105
Comments