ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018
Learning from failures of protocol in cross-cultural research.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding Gender Differences in Acceptance of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: Are Women Truly More Accepting Than Men?Journal of interpersonal violence · 2026Article
- Higher education predicts global cultural similarity to WEIRD countries.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Harmonizing adapted interventions across contexts: lessons from harmonizing the World Health Organization's Caregiver Skills Training in Ethiopia and Kenya.Translational behavioral medicine · 2026Article
- Construct validity in cross-cultural, developmental research: challenges and strategies for improvement.Evolutionary human sciences · 2025Article
- Assessing subclinical psychopathological and personality traits in a small-scale subsistence society.Evolution, medicine, and public health · 2025Article
- Statistical learning and children's emergent literacy in rural Côte d'Ivoire.Developmental science · 2024Article
- A practical guide to cross-cultural and multi-sited data collection in the biological and behavioural sciences.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Misperception of peer beliefs reinforces inequitable gender norms among Tanzanian men.Evolutionary human sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- Navigational Experience and the Preservation of Spatial Abilities into Old Age Among a Tropical Forager-Farmer Population.Topics in cognitive science · 2023Article
- Distinguishing Intergroup and Long-Distance Relationships.Human nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.) · 2022Review
- Social hierarchies and social networks in humans.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Vocal communication across cultures: theoretical and methodological issues.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Emotional responses in Papua New Guinea show negligible evidence for a universal effect of major versus minor music.PloS one · 2022Article
- A critical review of measures of childhood vaccine confidence.Current opinion in immunology · 2021Review
- Why Hypothesis Testers Should Spend Less Time Testing Hypotheses.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2021Article
- Elements of Neuroanthropology.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Review
- Navigating cross-cultural research: methodological and ethical considerations.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2020Article
- Beyond Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) Psychology: Measuring and Mapping Scales of Cultural and Psychological Distance.Psychological science · 2020Article
- Preferences and constraints: the value of economic games for studying human behaviour.Royal Society open science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The many tools that social and behavioral scientists use to gather data from their fellow humans have, in most cases, been honed on a rarefied subset of humanity: highly educated participants with unique capacities, experiences, motivations, and social expectations. Through this honing process, researchers have developed protocols that extract information from these participants with great efficiency. However, as researchers reach out to broader populations, it is unclear whether these highly refined protocols are robust to cultural differences in skills, motivations, and expected modes of social interaction. In this paper, we illustrate the kinds of mismatches that can arise when using these highly refined protocols with nontypical populations by describing our experience translating an apparently simple social discounting protocol to work in rural Bangladesh. Multiple rounds of piloting and revision revealed a number of tacit assumptions about how participants should perceive, understand, and respond to key elements of the protocol. These included facility with numbers, letters, abstract number lines, and 2D geometric shapes, and the treatment of decisions as a series of isolated events. Through on-the-ground observation and a collaborative refinement process, we developed a protocol that worked both in Bangladesh and among US college students. More systematic study of the process of adapting common protocols to new contexts will provide valuable information about the range of skills, motivations, and modes of interaction that participants bring to studies as we develop a more diverse and inclusive social and behavioral science.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.