Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42029789›Full record

ReviewBehavior research methods2026

Citizen science in psychology: Challenges, opportunities, and recommendations.

Eva Van den Bussche, Kirsten A Verhaegen, Bert Reynvoet, Gethin Hughes

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Behavior research methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Eva Van den BusscheBrain & Cognition, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. Eva.Vandenbussche@kuleuven.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1894-9380
Kirsten A VerhaegenDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.
Bert ReynvoetBrain & Cognition, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Gethin HughesDepartment of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human society is characterized by an interest in understanding the world and its phenomena. However, for most of society, science is a distant endeavor, reserved for a select group, and a wide gap exists between scientists and citizens. This gap is even more striking in psychology, where humans are the study subjects of interest. Citizen science (CS) is a recent approach that incorporates perspectives of nonprofessional scientists or "citizens" through their active participation in scientific research. Because CS remains largely unexplored within several subdomains of psychology, including cognitive psychology, this review highlights the opportunities that CS can offer for our field. After situating the relation between science and society and the emergence of CS in the history of science, we provide an overview of existing definitions and models of CS, which we then synthesize into a new model. We also describe CS studies within the field of psychology, with a specific focus on cognitive psychology. Crucially, we discuss the main opportunities and challenges of CS, zooming in on specific challenges that CS faces within psychology and cognitive psychology in particular. Ultimately, this review aims to bridge the gap between psychologists and their study subjects, by stimulating the development and application of a citizen science approach within cognitive psychology.

Indexed as

Citizen SciencePsychologyHumansPsychologistsCitizen scienceCognitive psychologyParticipatory researchPsychology

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.