Weirdness is in the eye of the beholder
Henrich et al.'s critical review demonstrating that psychology research is over-reliant on WEIRD samples is an important contribution to the field. Their stronger claim that "WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual" is less convincing, however. We argue that WEIRD people's appare...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The Behavioral and brain sciences 2010-06, Vol.33 (2-3), p.85-86 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 86 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2-3 |
| container_start_page | 85 |
| container_title | The Behavioral and brain sciences |
| container_volume | 33 |
| creator | Bennis, Will M. Medin, Douglas L. |
| description | Henrich et al.'s critical review demonstrating that psychology research is over-reliant on WEIRD samples is an important contribution to the field. Their stronger claim that "WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual" is less convincing, however. We argue that WEIRD people's apparent distinct weirdness is a methodological side-effect of psychology's over-reliance on WEIRD populations for developing its methods and theoretical constructs. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0140525X1000004X |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_899135370</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2637307457</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-819e2fb609e5107ec8efa901d35b8fcc39a05dfbb9755cff90582e9826eb197b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUtLAzEUhYMoWqs_wI0UXLgazU1y81iqaBUFERXdhXnc0NG2U5MW9N87Y7ULXRgCuXC-cy7hMLYH_Ag4mON7DoqjwGfg3VHPa6wHSrsMrMB11uvkrNO32HZKLy2CCt0m2xIckRtpe-zwiepYTSmlQd3e6WA-ogF90KAJX2NBo2ZcUdxhGyEfJ9r9fvvs8eL84ewyu7kdXp2d3GSlknyeWXAkQqG5IwRuqLQUcsehkljYUJbS5RyrUBTOIJYhOI5WkLNCUwHOFLLPDpe5s9i8LSjN_aROJY3H-ZSaRfLWOZAoDf-XNGhBSGXN_6SUymgtVEse_CJfmkWcth_2QksjuVHY5cGSKmOTUqTgZ7Ge5PHDA_ddMf5PMa1n_zt5UUyoWjl-mmiBbAnUaU7vKz2Pr14badDr4Z2H6yHo63bBqfwE9-qTvA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2637307457</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Weirdness is in the eye of the beholder</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Bennis, Will M. ; Medin, Douglas L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Bennis, Will M. ; Medin, Douglas L.</creatorcontrib><description>Henrich et al.'s critical review demonstrating that psychology research is over-reliant on WEIRD samples is an important contribution to the field. Their stronger claim that "WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual" is less convincing, however. We argue that WEIRD people's apparent distinct weirdness is a methodological side-effect of psychology's over-reliance on WEIRD populations for developing its methods and theoretical constructs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0140-525X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-1825</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X1000004X</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20550738</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BBSCDH</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Classification ; College students ; Cross-Cultural Comparison ; Cultural differences ; Culture ; Humans ; Population ; Population Groups ; Psychology ; Research Design ; Research methodology ; Social Science Research</subject><ispartof>The Behavioral and brain sciences, 2010-06, Vol.33 (2-3), p.85-86</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-819e2fb609e5107ec8efa901d35b8fcc39a05dfbb9755cff90582e9826eb197b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-819e2fb609e5107ec8efa901d35b8fcc39a05dfbb9755cff90582e9826eb197b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,33775</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20550738$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bennis, Will M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Medin, Douglas L.</creatorcontrib><title>Weirdness is in the eye of the beholder</title><title>The Behavioral and brain sciences</title><addtitle>Behav Brain Sci</addtitle><description>Henrich et al.'s critical review demonstrating that psychology research is over-reliant on WEIRD samples is an important contribution to the field. Their stronger claim that "WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual" is less convincing, however. We argue that WEIRD people's apparent distinct weirdness is a methodological side-effect of psychology's over-reliance on WEIRD populations for developing its methods and theoretical constructs.</description><subject>Classification</subject><subject>College students</subject><subject>Cross-Cultural Comparison</subject><subject>Cultural differences</subject><subject>Culture</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Population Groups</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Research methodology</subject><subject>Social Science Research</subject><issn>0140-525X</issn><issn>1469-1825</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUtLAzEUhYMoWqs_wI0UXLgazU1y81iqaBUFERXdhXnc0NG2U5MW9N87Y7ULXRgCuXC-cy7hMLYH_Ag4mON7DoqjwGfg3VHPa6wHSrsMrMB11uvkrNO32HZKLy2CCt0m2xIckRtpe-zwiepYTSmlQd3e6WA-ogF90KAJX2NBo2ZcUdxhGyEfJ9r9fvvs8eL84ewyu7kdXp2d3GSlknyeWXAkQqG5IwRuqLQUcsehkljYUJbS5RyrUBTOIJYhOI5WkLNCUwHOFLLPDpe5s9i8LSjN_aROJY3H-ZSaRfLWOZAoDf-XNGhBSGXN_6SUymgtVEse_CJfmkWcth_2QksjuVHY5cGSKmOTUqTgZ7Ge5PHDA_ddMf5PMa1n_zt5UUyoWjl-mmiBbAnUaU7vKz2Pr14badDr4Z2H6yHo63bBqfwE9-qTvA</recordid><startdate>201006</startdate><enddate>201006</enddate><creator>Bennis, Will M.</creator><creator>Medin, Douglas L.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>7QG</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201006</creationdate><title>Weirdness is in the eye of the beholder</title><author>Bennis, Will M. ; Medin, Douglas L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-819e2fb609e5107ec8efa901d35b8fcc39a05dfbb9755cff90582e9826eb197b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Classification</topic><topic>College students</topic><topic>Cross-Cultural Comparison</topic><topic>Cultural differences</topic><topic>Culture</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Population Groups</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Research methodology</topic><topic>Social Science Research</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bennis, Will M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Medin, Douglas L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><jtitle>The Behavioral and brain sciences</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bennis, Will M.</au><au>Medin, Douglas L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Weirdness is in the eye of the beholder</atitle><jtitle>The Behavioral and brain sciences</jtitle><addtitle>Behav Brain Sci</addtitle><date>2010-06</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>2-3</issue><spage>85</spage><epage>86</epage><pages>85-86</pages><issn>0140-525X</issn><eissn>1469-1825</eissn><coden>BBSCDH</coden><abstract>Henrich et al.'s critical review demonstrating that psychology research is over-reliant on WEIRD samples is an important contribution to the field. Their stronger claim that "WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual" is less convincing, however. We argue that WEIRD people's apparent distinct weirdness is a methodological side-effect of psychology's over-reliance on WEIRD populations for developing its methods and theoretical constructs.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><pmid>20550738</pmid><doi>10.1017/S0140525X1000004X</doi><tpages>2</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0140-525X |
| ispartof | The Behavioral and brain sciences, 2010-06, Vol.33 (2-3), p.85-86 |
| issn | 0140-525X 1469-1825 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_899135370 |
| source | MEDLINE; Sociological Abstracts; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
| subjects | Classification College students Cross-Cultural Comparison Cultural differences Culture Humans Population Population Groups Psychology Research Design Research methodology Social Science Research |
| title | Weirdness is in the eye of the beholder |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T22%3A51%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Weirdness%20is%20in%20the%20eye%20of%20the%20beholder&rft.jtitle=The%20Behavioral%20and%20brain%20sciences&rft.au=Bennis,%20Will%20M.&rft.date=2010-06&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=2-3&rft.spage=85&rft.epage=86&rft.pages=85-86&rft.issn=0140-525X&rft.eissn=1469-1825&rft.coden=BBSCDH&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0140525X1000004X&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2637307457%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2637307457&rft_id=info:pmid/20550738&rfr_iscdi=true |