Representation in Research matters!
Written by Kiran Dogra
Is research really that weird? It sure is! Much of the research in Psychology that we read online is often about WEIRD populations – the Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, Democratic type of people (e.g., May et al., 1993; Yanaoka et al., 2022). These studies exclude a massive chunk of people. This means the studies conducted by researchers aren’t necessarily representative of people with physical disabilities, women, or Black, Indigenous, People of Colour (BIPOC). This is a major problem.
Why is inclusivity in research important? As of April 1st, 2024, Canada’s population reached over 41 million. Almost 30 percent of these people report having a background identifying as a visible minority. Past research was often conducted by White researchers, who generated questions about populations that do not represent BIPOC communities (Arnett, 2008; Heinrich et al., 2010). These researchers could be biased if they assumed that all humans shared the same experiences, consequently perpetuating inequity in research (see Syed & Kathawalla, 2021; Syed, Santos, Yoo, & Juang, 2018).
It is also important to ask relevant, timely research questions in psychological research. These questions should be context dependent and address a current issue. For instance, it is now common knowledge that young children haven’t developed the tools to demonstrate important cognitive skills such as memory, decision-making, perspective-taking, while older adults experience decline in these areas. This foundational research is important. While age helps to determine the basic differences, there are other explanations for this. An over-reliance on age differences can distract us from observing other explanations for development, such as cultural and historical contexts (McLean & Riggs, 2021), or individual differences among people (May et al., 1993). For example, when comparing performance in younger and older adults on a memory task, May et al., (1993) uncovered that people performed worse when they were tested during their non-optimal time: Older adults were worse during the afternoon, and younger adults were worse during the morning. Here, age and testing time interact to affect memory performance. Even seemingly straightforward factors like the time of day at which testing occurs can disproportionately affect a group of people (i.e., older adults) due to standard methods that researchers rarely think about. This reinforces the WEIRD problem! While researchers can address these methodological issues, cultural and historical contexts of development still significantly impact performance.
Whether age differences are present or absent, it does not always mean there is a sign of development. Yanaoka and colleagues’ (2022) work on delaying gratification (i.e., resisting immediate rewards for larger rewards later on) in 4-to-5-year-old children is an optimal example of outlining cultural norms in learned habits. The authors compared culturally learned habits in waiting customs that involved food and gifts for Japanese and American children. Children were offered one reward immediately, or two if they waited 15 minutes. For example, children received a marshmallow (or a gift), and were asked to wait to receive a second marshmallow (or gift). The key finding: Japanese children waited significantly longer for food than gifts, while American children waited significantly longer for gifts than food. The authors explain their findings as follows: Japanese children wait to eat until everyone is served; American children do not. American children wait to open presents (e.g., birthday parties, Christmas); Japanese children do not. This research clearly suggests that resisting a reward for a larger, later reward can be explained by culturally learned habits. Children who learn to resist temptation in ways that are valued by their culture may be more successful at achieving their goals. Things like cultural traditions and how parents raise their kids can help build these habits (Yanaoka et al., 2022). Yanaoka et al. (2022) provide substantial evidence on how developmental processes may vary by cultural group (Correa-Chávez & Rogoff, 2009), rather than age (McLean & Riggs, 2021).
While individual, cultural, and historical implications are important explanations for development, it is important to consider how these factors may interact altogether. This is where intersectionality becomes a valuable framework for understanding these interactions. Intersectionality helps us understand how our social and political identities (e.g., race, gender, class, sexual orientation, and disability) combine to create unique experiences of discrimination and privilege (Crenshaw, 1989). For instance, take Manuela – a first-generation, Latinx American girl who recently immigrated to the United states from Mexico. Manuela attends high school in a predominantly White neighbourhood with White Americans like Janelle – her peer who comes from an upper-class family. Unlike Janelle, Manuela cannot spend her time participating in extracurriculars, studying, or spending time with her friends. Instead, Manuela works at her part-time job after school to support her single mother and siblings. Given that kids like Janelle and Manuela differ greatly, recognizing situations like Manuela’s reveals how intersectionality shows oppression or advantage. Research on WEIRD populations better represents people like Janelle instead of Manuela, even though they are the same age. How does one fix this problem?
Good news! Research is now heading in a different direction. When designing research for specific populations, scholars have suggested that we seek guidance from members of that community (e.g., Whitmore & Mills, 2021). Seeking feedback from community members provides opportunities to recognize any preliminary biases researchers may have, encouraging the recruitment process for collecting data (e.g., via partnerships), and designing research studies that better represent the needs of BIPOC individuals. Whitemore and Mills (2021) call this “co-creating developmental science”.
What can you do? When reading an article, be sure to review the participant demographics. If a study does not have a research question pertaining to a specific population (e.g., limited to age, race, ethnicity, gender identity, etc.) their sample should be representative and diverse. The larger the sample, the more diverse it will likely be. Try searching for studies containing demographic information that are less WEIRD. You may also consider studies that consist of interviews. Interviews contain more descriptive information, such as open-ended responses from participants (e.g., Rogers et al., 2021).
Historically, psychological research has focused on WEIRD populations, often excluding BIPOC communities. This limited perspective can lead to biased findings and hinder our understanding of human development. It is imperative to prioritize inclusivity in research by involving minorities in the research process and asking the right questions. This allows researchers to develop more accurate and applicable findings, inform public policy, and promote equity. Let’s make research less WEIRD!
If you enjoyed this blog post, check out our other blog posts!
References
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
Correa-Chávez, M., & Rogoff, B. (2009). Children's attention to interactions directed to others: Guatemalan Mayan and European American patterns. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 630–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014144
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167
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
May, C. P., Hasher, L., & Stoltzfus, E. R. (1993). Optimal time of day and the magnitude of age differences in memory. Psychological Science, 4(5), 326–330. https://hasherlab.psych.utoronto.ca/PDF/OPT%20TOD%20and%20magnitude%20of%20age%20difs%20May%20et%20al%201993.pdf
McLean, K. C., & Riggs, A. E. (2021). No age differences? No problem. Infant and Child Development, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2261
Rogers, L. O., Niwa, E. Y., Chung, K., Yip, T., & Chae, D. (2021). M(ai)cro: Centering the Macrosystem in Human Development. Human Development, 65(5–6), 270–292. https://doi.org/10.1159/000519630
Syed, M., & Kathawalla, U.-K. (2021). Cultural psychology, diversity, and representation in Open Science. In K. C. McLean (Ed.), Cultural methodologies in psychology: Describing and transforming cultures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Syed, M., Santos, C., Yoo, H. C., & Juang, L. P. (2018). Invisibility of racial/ethnic minorities in developmental science: Implications for research and institutional practices. American Psychologist, 73(6), 812–826. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000294
Whitmore, L. B., & Mills, K. L. (2021). Co‐creating developmental science. Infant and Child Development, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2273
Yanaoka, K., Michaelson, L. E., Guild, R. M., Dostart, G., Yonehiro, J., Saito, S., & Munakata, Y. (2022). Cultures crossing: The power of habit in delaying gratification. Psychological Science, 33(7), 1172-1181. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221074650
Disclaimer
The blog posts are for informational and educational purposes only. The posts should not be considered as any type of advice (medical, mental health, legal, and/or religious advice). All blog posts have been researched, written, and edited by the undergraduate students and alumni of the Lifespan Cognition Lab. As a teaching and research-based lab, we encourage all lab members to help make knowledge more accessible to all communities through these posts.
