Cited by 510Psychometric Methodologies and TestingSocial Representations and IdentitySurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

Do Student Samples Provide an Accurate Estimate of the General Public?

Open access
Hanel, Paul H. P., Vione, Katia C.·2016·PLOS ONE

Abstract

Most psychological studies rely on student samples. Students are usually considered as more homogenous than representative samples both within and across countries. However, little is known about the nature of the differences between student and representative samples. This is an important gap, also because knowledge about the degree of difference between student and representative samples may allow to infer from the former to the latter group. Across 59 countries and 12 personality (Big-5) and attitudinal variables we found that differences between students and general public were partly substantial, incoherent, and contradicted previous findings. Two often used cultural variables, embeddedness and intellectual autonomy, failed to explain the differences between both groups across countries. We further found that students vary as much as the general population both between and within countries. In summary, our results indicate that generalizing from students to the general public can be problematic when personal and attitudinal variables are used, as students vary mostly randomly from the general public. Findings are also discussed in terms of the replication crisis within psychology.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0168354

Cites

29 of 29 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?

  • Most of this research depends on student samples, most commonly psychology student samples.

    “A further comment, which is true for much psychology literature (e.g., Hanel & Vione, 2016), is that most of this research depends on student samples, most commonly psychology student samples.”

    From Factors Related to Mean Score Group Differences on Cognitive Ability Tests: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as Hanel & Vione, 2016

    The Introduction says student samples are extremely common in psychological studies, supporting the general point about psychology research. The Discussion (Implications and limitations) mentions psychology students but says the authors had no data on students’ subjects; it does not establish that psychology students are the most common student sample. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

7 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [4]Fischer R, Schwartz S. Whence differences in value priorities? Individual, cultural, or artifactual sources. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 2011; 42: 1127– 1144.
  2. [15]Klein RA, Ratliff KA, Vianello M, Adams RB, Bahník Š, Bernstein MJ, et al Investigating variation in replicability. Soc Psychol. 2014; 45: 142– 152.
  3. [17]Schwartz SH. The 7 Schwartz cultural value orientation scores for 80 countries [Internet]. Dataset; 2008. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304715744_The_7_Schwartz_cultural_value_orientation_scores_for_80_countries
  4. [28]Druckman JN, Kam CD. Students as Experimental Participants: A Defense of the “Narrow Data Base.” In: Druckman JN, Green DP, Kuklinski JH, Lupia A, editors. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York: CUP; 2011 pp. 41– 57.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hanel, P. H. P., & Vione, K. C.
Affiliations
Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Hanel, Paul H. P.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2016-12-21
Volume
11
Issue
12
Pages
e0168354
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2569236205
Cited by
510
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 80 · 2020: 87 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
23.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (acceptedVersion)
  • University of Derby Online Research Archive. (University of Derby) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • The University of Bath Online Publications Store (The University of Bath) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Pure (University of Bath) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Economic and Social Research Council (GB) (ES/J500197/1)
  • CAPES Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Representations and Identity
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
student samples, cross-cultural comparison, Big Five personality traits, attitudes, embeddedness, intellectual autonomy, sampling bias, replication crisis, cross-national comparison
MeSH terms
Attitude, Female, Humans, Male, Personality, Psychological Tests, Students, Knowledge, Young Adult

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