WEIRD but Also Inconsistent: An Analysis of the Reporting Practices of Participant Samples Across Five Areas of Psychology
Abstract
ABSTRACT In this study, we systematically investigate the Methods sections of five journals covering core areas of Psychology: Social, health, clinical, developmental, and general psychological science. Journals were published by the British Psychology Society between January 2021 and December 2023 ( N articles = 661; N samples = 1293). As expected, we found an over‐reliance on Western perspectives: Participants from Latin America, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa made up 8.7% of samples combined. However, we also found substantial variation in whether and where participants' gender, race, SES indicators, and education were reported across different areas of Psychology, as well as different norms in the use of students and crowd‐sourcing platforms. Given the challenges of representation in Psychology and the importance of interdisciplinary perspectives, we make a case for a unified standard of reporting that allows readers to more readily access how findings generalise to populations beyond those sampled.
Key Points
Objective
The study analyzes how participant samples are reported in major psychology journals, highlighting issues of representation.
Methods
- Investigated Methods sections of five psychology journals published by the British Psychological Society.
- Examined 661 articles and 1293 participant samples published between January 2021 and December 2023.
- Evaluated reporting practices for participant demographics including gender, race, SES indicators, and education.
Results
- Found that only 8.7% of samples included participants from Latin America, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.
- Identified substantial variation in reporting practices for demographics across different psychology areas.
- Noted differences in reliance on students and crowd-sourcing platforms for participant recruitment.