Cited by 631Cultural Differences and ValuesExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Beyond WEIRD: towards a broad-based behavioral science

Henrich, Joseph, Heine, Steven J., Norenzayan, Ara·2010·Behavioral and Brain Sciences

Abstract

In our response to the 28 (largely positive) commentaries from an esteemed collection of researchers, we (1) consolidate additional evidence, extensions, and amplifications offered by our commentators; (2) emphasize the value of integrating experimental and ethnographic methods, and show how researchers using behavioral games have done precisely this; (3) present our concerns with arguments from several commentators that separate variable “content” from “computations” or “basic processes”; (4) address concerns that the patterns we highlight marking WEIRD people as psychological outliers arise from aspects of the researchers and the research process; (5) respond to the claim that as members of the same species, humans must have the same invariant psychological processes; (6) address criticisms of our telescoping contrasts; and (7) return to the question of explaining why WEIRD people are psychologically unusual. We believe a broad-based behavioral science of human nature needs to integrate a variety of methods and apply them to diverse populations, well beyond the WEIRD samples it has largely relied upon.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0140525x10000725

Cites

129 of 129 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 existing research literature on mental health largely represents the perspectives of people who are White, are educated, are of high socioeconomic status, and speak English.

    “the existing research literature on mental health largely represents the perspectives of people who are White, are educated, are of high socioeconomic status, and speak English [54]”
  • Most reviewed studies used non-clinical samples of students from Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) societies.

    “Second, most of the reviewed studies used non-clinical samples of students, from Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, Democratic societies (W.E.I.R.D.; Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Venue
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Published
2010-06
Volume
33
Issue
2-3
Pages
111-135
ISSN
  • 0140-525X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-1825
OpenAlex
W2067015959
Cited by
631
References
129
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 83 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 14
FWCI
14.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Behavioral and Brain Sciences (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
WEIRD samples, behavioral games, experimental ethnography, cross-cultural psychology, human nature, sample diversity, methodological integration

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