Cited by 89Psychology Research and BibliometricsEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

How Diverse Are the Samples Used in the Journals ‘Evolution & Human Behavior’ and ‘Evolutionary Psychology’?

Open access
Pollet, Thomas V., Saxton, Tamsin K.·2019·Evolutionary Psychological Science

Abstract

Psychologists regularly draw inferences about populations based on data from small samples of people, and so have long been interested in how well those samples generalise to wider populations. There is a consensus that psychology probably relies too much on samples from Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) societies and among those from university students. Online surveys might be used to increase sample diversity, although online sampling still reaches only a restricted range of participants. Studies from evolutionary psychology often seek to uncover aspects of evolved universal characteristics, and so might demonstrate a particular interest in the use of diverse samples. Here, we empirically examine the samples used in the 2015–2016 volumes of ‘Evolution & Human Behavior’ (104 articles) and ‘Evolutionary Psychology’ (76 articles). Our database consists of 311 samples of humans (median sample size = 186). The majority of samples were either online or student samples (70% of samples), followed by other adult Western samples (19%). Two hundred fifty-three (81%) of the samples were classified as ‘Western’ (Europe/North America/Australia). The remaining samples were predominantly from Asia (N = 37; 12%, mostly Japan). Only a small fraction of the samples were taken from Latin American and Caribbean (N = 8) or African (N = 6) countries. The median sample size did not differ significantly between continents, but online samples (both paid and unpaid) were typically larger than samples sourced offline. It seems that the samples used are more diverse than those that have been reported in reviews of the literature from social and developmental psychology, perhaps because evolutionary psychology has a greater inherent need to test hypotheses about an evolved and universal human nature. However, it is also apparent that the majority of samples within contemporary evolutionary psychology research remain WEIRD.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40806-019-00192-2

Cites

108 of 108 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The majority of current research on reciprocal relations between motivation and academic achievement has suffered from a sampling bias problem, conducted using homogenous samples in ethnicity and cultural background.

    “the majority of current research on the reciprocal relations between motivation and academic achievement has suffered from what can be considered a sampling bias problem (Pollet & Saxton, 2019), i.e., conducted using homogenous samples in terms of ethnicity (Marsh & Martin, 2011) and cultural background (Henrich et al., 2010).”

    From Motivation-Achievement Cycles in Learning: a Literature Review and Research Agenda (2022) · cites this paper as Pollet & Saxton, 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 112 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Brown, D. E. (1991). Human universals. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  2. Naroll, R. (1965). Galton's problem: the logic of cross-cultural analysis. Social Research, 32(4), 428-451.
  3. Pearl, J. (2009a). Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Xie, Y. (2015). Dynamic documents with R and knitr (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pollet, T. V., & Saxton, T. K.
Affiliations
Northumbria University (GB)
Corresponding author
Pollet, Thomas V.
Venue
Evolutionary Psychological Science
Published
2019-03-12
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
357-368
ISSN
2198-9885 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2912330488
Cited by
89
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4
FWCI
10.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Evolutionary Psychological Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Northumbria University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
sample diversity, WEIRD samples, evolutionary psychology, generalizability, online sampling, student samples, sample size, participant recruitment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review