Psychology, like most professions, holds many little secrets. They’re well known and usually accepted amongst the profession itself, but known to few “outsiders” or even journalists — whose job it is to not only report research findings, but put them into some sort of context.
One of those secrets is that most psychology research done in the U.S. is consistently done primarily on college students — specifically, undergraduate students taking a psychology course. It’s been this way for the better part of 50 years.
But are undergraduate college students studying at a U.S. university representative of the population in America? In the world? Can we honestly generalize from such un-representative samples and make broad claims about all human behavior (a trait of exaggeration fairly commonplace made by researchers in these kinds of studies).
These questions were raised by a group of Canadian researchers writing in Behavioral and Brain Sciences journal last month, as noted by Anand Giridharadas in an article yesterday in The New York Times:
Psychologists claim to speak of human nature, the study argues, but they have mostly been telling us about a group of WEIRD outliers, as the study calls them — Westernized, educated people from industrialized, rich democracies.
According to the study, 68 percent of research subjects in a sample of hundreds of studies in leading psychology journals came from the United States, and 96 percent from Western industrialized nations. Of the American subjects, 67 percent were undergraduates studying psychology — making a randomly selected American undergraduate 4,000 times likelier to be a subject than a random non-Westerner.
Western psychologists routinely generalize about “human” traits from data on this slender subpopulation, and psychologists elsewhere cite these papers as evidence.
The study finds that American undergraduates may be particularly unsuitable — as a class — for studies about human behavior, because they are so often outliers in their behavior. Both because they are American (yes, it’s true, American behavior is not equal to all human behavior on Earth!), and because they are college students in America.
I don’t know about you, but I do know that my interaction with others, the world around me, and even to random stimuli is very different now in my 40s than it was when I was a young adult (or teenager, since most freshmen are only 18 or 19). We change, we learn, we grow. Generalizing human behavior from people of such a young and relatively inexperienced age appears short-sighted at best.
Scientists in most fields typically look for what’s called a randomized sample — that is, a sample that reflects the population at large. We hold large corporations accountable to this gold standard — the randomized sample — and the FDA demands it in all drug trials. We’d be aghast if the FDA approved a drug, for instance, upon a biased sample made up of people not representative of those who might end up being prescribed the drug.
But apparently psychology has been getting away with something far less than this gold standard for decades. Why is that?
- Convenience/laziness — College students are convenient to these kinds of psychology researchers, who usually are employed by universities. It takes a lot more work to go out into the community and garner a randomized sample — work that takes a lot more time and effort.
- Cost — Randomized samples cost more than convenience samples (e.g., college students at hand). That’s because you need to advertise for the research subjects in the local community, and advertising costs money.
- Tradition — “This is the way it’s always been done and it’s been acceptable to the profession and journals.” This is a common logical fallacy (Appeal to Tradition) and is a weak argument to continue a flawed process.
- “Good enough” data — Researchers believe that the data they gather from undergraduates is “good enough” data to lead to generalizations about human behavior more globally. This would be fine if specific research existed to back up this belief. Otherwise the opposite is just as likely to be true — that this data is fatally flawed and biased, and generalizes only to other American college students.
I’m certain there are other reasons researchers in psychology continuously rationalize their reliance on American college students as subjects in their studies.
There’s little to be done about this state of affairs, unfortunately. Journals will continue to accept such studies (indeed, there are entire journals devoted to these kinds of studies). Authors of such studies will continue to fail to note this limitation when writing about their findings (few authors mention it, except in passing). We’ve simply become accustomed to a lower quality of research than we’d otherwise demand from a profession.
Perhaps it’s because the findings of such research rarely result in anything much useful — what I call “actionable” behavior. These studies seem to offer snippets of insights into disjointed pieces of American behavior. Then someone publishes a book about them, pulling them all together, and suggesting there’s an overarching theme that can be followed. (If you dig into the research such books are based upon, they are nearly always lacking.)
Don’t get me wrong — it can be very entertaining and often interesting to read such books and studies. But the contribution to our real understanding of human behavior is increasingly being called into question.
Read the full New York Times article: A Weird Way of Thinking Has Prevailed Worldwide
Reference
Henrich, J. Heine, S.J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? (free access). Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
12 comments
When I did my doctoral research in 1999 on the effects of a trauma history on therapists treating survivors of sexual abuse, I chose to interview and work with “experienced” therapists to avoid just this bias that you discuss. Its a very important bias in social science research. Students are a captive audience and much more readily available than a more general pool of subjects. It took me quite some time and a lot of frustration to locate my sample.
Thank you for this important article. It validates my decision to market to the entire population instead of to the groups that attract people who fit their preconceived notions.
It also helps explain how a doctor can say, “I have seen many hundreds, if not thousands, of patients like Rose over the past 30 years. I have never had one–no, not one–say to me, ‘Gosh, Doctor, there are some real 
benefits to all this depression!’†Seems this one mistakes his small slice for the whole, while not realizing that such beliefs become wrongly validated by attracting the slice that corresponds to them.
The slice I attract is looking for insight and meaning in their depression and mania. While I recognize that some percent of the whole are incapable of it, we will never know if it is 1%, 99%, or somewhere in between, until we accept that it is possible and start teaching people how.
This was probably the best article I’ve read here ever! yes, people who have been in the mental health system for a decade may have different situations than young college students. Thanks for the awareness!!
Like any profession, we psychologists take our work seriously. I can’t stand when people think they have outsmarted men and women with PHDs by coming up with a simple idea.
I’ve had this argument with a professor a while back and it turns out psychology has done extensive research showing that many psychological principals that are found in undergraduates can also be found in adults all around the country. Students differ in only a few areas; they tend to be more educated(no surprise there) and have more money than the average American random sample. However if evidence shows that using students may middle the data WE CHOOSE TO USE OTHER SUBJECTS THAT ARE A BETTER REPRESENTATIVES.
we are not stupid.
Legally, we don’t consider folks to be responsible “adults” until 21, and yet their thoughts and behavior beforehand should still be considered “representative” of the population at large? So how does that work?
In any case, “age” is a commonsense variable, so how ’bout if researchers just make it clear when most of their participants are students? Problem solved.
Another unknown factor is that college students have a strong possibility that they have Subliminal Distraction exposure. Explained under the physiology of sight and hearing, believed to be a harmless nuisance in the Design field, visual SD is capable of causing a variety of apparent psychiatric symptoms.
That means the study might be compromised if one of the subjects had a change in their exposure.
No drug company controls for this problem Although several of them downloaded the contents of my site none ever contacted me.
Having a B.S. Degree in Psychology, this doesn’t come to me as a shock. I was a participant in a few research studies. They were always recruiting for subjects.
Not only is this a problem in psychological research. But, research methods 101 teaches that for any study to have any validity, it must have at least 100 subjects. I can’t count the number of studies I found published that have 50. Or 20 subjects in the study. These studies were a waste of time.
It promotes the belief that psychology research is not “real” science. But, no one seems to care. Or not enough people care.
Yes, a lot of studies use undergraduates as participants — this does not mean that all of them do, and it does not mean that their results cannot be generalized to the population they are trying to represent. Cognitive psychology, developmental psychology and evolutionary psychology are just quick examples of fields that are easily generalizable to human’s in general.
Also, when findings are published regarding any trait or behavior that has been shown to be universal and occurring in many cultures, those cultures are also included in the sample.
Psychology Student – Actually, all of the types of psychology fields you listed are indeed susceptible to the bias of using college students for many of their studies.
Johnny – I’d love to see a few references for this. I’m not aware of any studies (and I’ve looked) that have demonstrated that studying college students is equivalent, say, to studying 40-year-olds.
It surprises me that a serious researcher would think it’s reasonable to take a sample of college students and try to generalize to the rest of the population. I, too, think much differently about the world at age 37 than I did in my late teens/early twenties. I was a lot more idealistic back in those days and spent a lot more of my time back then under the influence.
Each human being is one of a kind. I always wonder how we can do any research on those increditble one of the kind creatures, who don’t know what they will do until they do it.
I hope the researchers simply have fun doing what they do, and that’s the only purpose of doing it. As a sounsellor/ hypnotherapist I surely don’t care about what they have to say about “human”.
I’m back in college in my late 30’s, and going for business degree. I have to take a marketing class. They come in and tell us that we MUST participate in 4 marketing studies in order to get X% of our grade.
This appalled me, because I knew to be statistically useful you can’t just rely on a narrow audience, much less one that is COERCED into participating for ulterior motives.
So, it’s not just psychology any more. I asked them flat-out in class about this, and they said with a grin on their faces some nonsesne about how “yes it’s convenience sampling, but we use it to … um … well…” Well, if you use it to see if an idea is worth pursuing with a larger study, great. But, chances are they are not. First day of class the professor was bragging about how our college is one of the most published colleges in marketing and sales, and that we have many professors in the top 10 professors of works sited internationally.
Yeah, must be nice and easy to do when you can crank out “research” all based on the convenience sampling of a captive student body you force into studies in order to get grades.
I’ve been a sales and marketing analyst for the past 8 years, and hearing them say all of this just made me sick to my stomach. When I graduate, I’ll basically tell any company I work for not to rely on my college’s marketing research for anything.
Comments are closed.