ReviewBehavior research methods2025
Digital pathways beyond Western-centric participants.
Review in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Public perceptions of polygenic testing and embryo selection for non-medical traits.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2010, Henrich and colleagues published a seminal article in which they noted that (1) studies in social and behavioural sciences oversample from Western, educated, industrialised, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) individuals, and (2) WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual compared to the rest of the world population with respect to several factors. Despite the positive reception of this article, not much has changed in the years to follow. For instance, reviews of recent papers in leading psychology journals reveal that only a small proportion of the studied samples originate from non-Western countries. This sampling bias cannot be excused for lack of means. The digital age has opened several opportunities to facilitate and support social science research with subjects from non-WEIRD backgrounds. In this article, I provide an overview of such tools and comment on the advantages and disadvantages of each.
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.