Cited by 122Cultural Differences and ValuesPsychology Research and BibliometricsSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Culture and the Home-Field Disadvantage

Medin, Douglas, Bennis, Will, Chandler, Michael·2010·Perspectives on Psychological Science

Abstract

The home-field disadvantage refers to the disadvantage inherent in research that takes a particular cultural group as the starting point or standard for research, including cross-cultural research. We argue that home-field status is a serious handicap that often pushes researchers toward deficit thinking, however good the researchers' intentions may be. In this article, we aim to make this home-field bias more explicit and, in doing so, more avoidable. We discuss three often-overlooked disadvantages that result from this home-field status: the problem of marked versus unmarked culture, the problem of homogenous versus heterogeneous culture, and the problem of regression toward the mean. We also recommend four interventions researchers can apply to avoid the home-field disadvantage or, at the least, attenuate its deleterious effects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1745691610388772

Cites

30 of 30 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 conventional medical paradigm implicitly assumes the existence of a typical or 'normal' level of ability held up as the ideal 'state of health', with those who enjoy this state taken as the normative standard and any other unfavourably compared with it.

    “As demonstrated in this definition, the conventional medical paradigm implicitly assumes the existence of a typical or ‘normal’ level of ability that is held up as the ideal ‘state of health’; those who enjoy this state are taken as the normative standard and any other is unfavourably compared with it (Akhtar & Jaswal, 2013; Medin, Bennis, & Chandler, 2010).”

    From Annual Research Review: Shifting from ‘normal science’ to neurodiversity in autism science (2022) · cites this paper as Medin, Bennis, & Chandler, 2010

  • Writing as if variation does not exist downplays the importance of sampling broadly and may lead to inappropriately aggregating across diverse groups or treating underrepresented groups as deficient.

    “Writing as if variation does not exist downplays the importance of sampling broadly, and may lead to inappropriately aggregating across diverse groups or treating underrepresented groups as deficient (19,49).”

    From Generic language in scientific communication (2019) · cites this paper as [19]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Medin, D., Bennis, W., & Chandler, M.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Medin, Douglas
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Published
2010-11
Volume
5
Issue
6
Pages
708-713
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
OpenAlex
W2034727552
Cited by
122
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 8
FWCI
7.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
deficit thinking, cross-cultural research, cultural homogeneity, cultural heterogeneity, regression to the mean, cultural bias in research

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