Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-mblfh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-26T11:42:09.200Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The future of experimental design: Integrative, but is the sample diverse enough?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2024

Sakshi Ghai Open the ORCID record for Sakshi Ghai [Opens in a new window]  and
Sanchayan Banerjee Open the ORCID record for Sanchayan Banerjee [Opens in a new window]
Sakshi Ghai
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK sg912@cam.ac.uk; https://www.psychol.cam.ac.uk/staff/sakshi-ghai
Sanchayan Banerjee*
Affiliation:
Environmental Economics, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands S.Banerjee@vu.nl; https://research.vu.nl/en/persons/sanchayan-banerjee
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Almaatouq et al. propose an “integrative approach” to increase the generalisability and commensurability of experiments. Yet their metascientific approach has one glaring omission (and misinterpretation of) – the role of sample diversity in generalisability. In this commentary, we challenge false notions of subsumed duality between contexts, population, and diversity, and propose modifications to their design space to accommodate sample diversity.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e42
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arnett, J. J. (2009). The neglected 95%, a challenge to psychology's philosophy of science. American Psychologist, 64(6), 571–574. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, S., & Mitra, S. (2023). Behavioural public policies for the social brain. Behavioural Public Policy, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deffner, D., Rohrer, J. M., & McElreath, R. (2022). A causal framework for cross-cultural generalizability. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459221106366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghai, S. (2022). Expand diversity definitions beyond their Western perspective. Nature, 602(7896), 211. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00330-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghai, S., Fassi, L., Awadh, F., & Orben, A. (2023). Lack of sample diversity in research on adolescent depression and social media use: A scoping review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychological Science, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026221114859Google Scholar
Gurven, M. D. (2018). Broadening horizons: Sample diversity and socioecological theory are essential to the future of psychological science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(45), 11420–11427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeffel, G. J., & Cobb, W. R. (2022). Tests of generalizability can diversify psychologyand improve theories. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(4), 186–187. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00039-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallsworth, M. (2023). A manifesto for applying behavioural science. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(3), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holland, P. W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(396), 945–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adetula, A., Forscher, P. S., Basnight-Brown, D., Azouaghe, S., & IJzerman, H. (2022). Psychology should generalize from – not just to – Africa. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 370–371. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00070-yGoogle Scholar
Medin, D., Ojalehto, B., Marin, A., & Bang, M. (2017). Systems of (non-) diversity. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(5), 88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neyman, J. (1923). On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments. Essay on principles. Annals of Agricultural Sciences, 1–51.Google Scholar
Rad, M. S., Martingano, A. J., & Ginges, J. (2018). Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(45), 11401–11405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, L. (2022). Navigating equity and justice in international collaborations. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 372–373. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00077-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, D. B. (1977). Assignment to treatment group on the basis of a covariate. Journal of Educational Statistics, 2(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, E. K., Suganthan, P. N., & Yao, X. (2006). An analysis of diversity measures. Machine Learning, 65, 247–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar