Times are displayed in (UTC-05:00) Central Time (US & Canada) Change
About this paper symposium
| Panel information |
|---|
| Panel 27. Solicited Content: Global South |
| Paper #1 | |
|---|---|
| Reframing representative science: Lessons from developmental psychology | |
| Author information | Role |
| Erin Robbins, University of St Andrews, School of Psychology & Neuroscience, Scotland | Presenting author |
| Akira O’Connor, University of St Andrews, School of Psychology & Neuroscience, Scotland | Non-presenting author |
| Abstract | |
|
Cross-cultural studies provide valuable insights into the complex interaction between environmental niches and developing cognitive, affective, and motor abilities. Although our field evidences rich theoretical engagement with cultural topics (Burman, 2016; Kline et al., 2018; Vygotsky, 1978), much of this research is led by scholars from the English-speaking Global North focusing on questions of relative universality in non-Western societies. We argue that recent efforts to diversify participant demographics (i.e., to avoid the problem of non-representative, W.E.I.R.D. samples; Henrich et al., 2010; Arnett, 2008) fail to address underlying, systemic power relationships that lead to skewed samples in the first place. Here we present a series of bibliometric analyses of representation in both authorship and participant demographics. Specifically, we investigated how often first authors and author teams include researchers from the cultures under their study. We conducted a systematic review of 2,754 articles published between 2005-2023 in six developmental journals (Developmental Psychology, Developmental Science, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, Infancy, Child Development, and Infant Behaviour and Development) as well as five other journals that publish on culture and human development (Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Evolution and Human Behavior, Cognition, Psychological Science, Nature, Science). We constrained our analysis to infant and child (1-12 years) studies published in English, and as a first pass we focused on studies with participant samples drawn from populations in the Global South. Using Web of Science, for each article we extracted: a) author affiliation, b) participant nationality, c) study type (single culture, cross-cultural), and d) research topic (motor, cognitive, affective, or social development). From this data we derived a local author index (LAI), a measure of the proportion of authors whose listed affiliation matched the stated nationality of the participant groups. We used LAIas a proxy of cultural extraction: lower values indicate studies in which authorship is less likely to share aspects of their cultural identity with the participant samples. Preliminary findings demonstrate high variability in LAI values (M=.29, SD=.31), including studies of children in the Global South with no local authorship (38% of cases). LAI values differ significantly depending on whether studies are single culture (M=.55, SD=.34) or cross-cultural (M=.15, SD=.20), with representative authorship less common in cross-cultural studies. Regression analyses suggest LAI values have not changed significantly over time, despite changes in editorial policies at several of the sampled journals. Overall, changes to participant diversity in developmental research have not been matched by a corresponding expansion of authorship. We highlight the still significant underrepresentation of authors from the cultures studied in developmental research and frame these results in the context of other findings (e.g., citation rates/networks) that reflect structural barriers to greater cultural representation in research outputs. We discuss practical implications of representative science, raising alternative models research collaborations and community partnerships. Our work offers insights into how cultural inclusivity in authorship, participant demography, and research focus could reshape the field, and what implications this might have for theoretical developments moving forward. |
|
| Paper #2 | |
|---|---|
| Culture ignored: Topical gaps in cross-cultural developmental psychology research | |
| Author information | Role |
| Sarah Michelle Pope, Ph.D., Department of Comparative Cultural Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology; Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, United States | Presenting author |
| Roman Stengelin, Department of Comparative Cultural Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany | Non-presenting author |
| Karri Neldner, Department of Comparative Cultural Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany | Non-presenting author |
| Luise Hornoff, Department of Comparative Cultural Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany | Non-presenting author |
| Ljubica Petrović, Department of Comparative Cultural Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany | Non-presenting author |
| Paula Hagen, Department of Comparative Cultural Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany | Non-presenting author |
| Dustin Eirdosh, Department of Comparative Cultural Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany | Non-presenting author |
| Wilson Vieira, Department of Comparative Cultural Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany | Non-presenting author |
| Luke Maurits, Department of Comparative Cultural Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany | Non-presenting author |
| Elisa Felsche, Department of Comparative Cultural Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany | Non-presenting author |
| Marie M. G. Michael, Department of Comparative Cultural Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany | Non-presenting author |
| Frankie T.K. Fong, Department of Comparative Cultural Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany | Non-presenting author |
| Daniel B.M. Haun, Department of Comparative Cultural Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany | Non-presenting author |
| Abstract | |
|
Culture and environment play a significant role in shaping cognitive development. From birth, humans are nurtured, educated, and socialized according to cultural norms. Culture prepares us to navigate the diverse socio-environmental contexts that comprise human society. Yet, developmental psychology has historically neglected the role of culture in cognitive development. Even when culture is considered, it is commonly framed as a way to increase sample diversity, rather than as an integral explanatory factor. This study aims to identify which topics in developmental psychology research have been studied in relation to culture and, importantly, which have not. We predicted that physiological or psychological concepts which are perceived as “innate” or fundamental to human cognition would be less likely to be tested in relation to culture. In contrast, we predicted that topics considered to be learned through socialization or integral to adapting to one's social environment would be more likely to be studied in relation to cultural variables. Extending this line of thought, we also looked at how research topics differed across sample populations. We predicted that areas of research which are considered to tap into “universal” constructs, would be less likely to include participants from diverse, globally representative communities. We conducted a systematic review of articles published between 2016 and 2020 in four developmental psychology journals and one cross-cultural psychology journal: Developmental Science, Developmental Psychology, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, Child Development, and Cross-Cultural Psychology. We focused on empirical studies that included child data (ages 0-10 years), yielding a final sample of 2,698 articles. From each article’s abstract we coded all independent and dependent variables of interest, and then categorized them into two levels: broader research area (e.g., social development), and specific topic (e.g., prosocial behavior). We also coded whether or not articles included a cultural variable of interest. Our analyses examine how the likelihood of an article containing a cultural variable was predicted by the broader research area. We also look at how the democracy index, education index and average household size of the countries where data were collected interacted with articles’ broader research areas. Preliminary results show that certain topics, such as language and, to a lesser extent, social development, were more likely to include cultural variables, while others, such as atypical and biological research focuses, were less likely to be studied in relation to culture. By identifying the topics and areas where culture is underrepresented, this study offers a roadmap for future research that seeks to address these gaps. |
|
| Paper #3 | |
|---|---|
| Bridging (virtual) borders: Insights from studying sharing behavior online in Canada and Brazil | |
| Author information | Role |
| Sylvia Pinheiro, Queen’s University, Psychology Department, Canada | Presenting author |
| Lara Gomes de Souza Silveira, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Physiology and Behavior Department, Brazil | Non-presenting author |
| Maria Eduarda de Lima Lopes, Queen’s University, Psychology Department, Canada | Non-presenting author |
| Rhonald Andrei Pinheiro das Neves, Federal University of Pará, Psychology Department, Brazil | Non-presenting author |
| Jefferson do Rosário Sousa, Federal University of Pará, Psychology Department, Brazil | Non-presenting author |
| Natalia Bezerra Dutra, Federal University of Pará, Neurosciences and Behavior Graduate Program, Brazil | Non-presenting author |
| Valerie A. Kuhlmeier, Queen’s University, Psychology Department, Canada | Non-presenting author |
| Fívia de Araújo Lopes, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Physiology and Behavior Department, Brazil | Non-presenting author |
| Abstract | |
|
Sharing behavior is crucial to understanding fairness development globally (Blake et al., 2015; House et al., 2020). As children increasingly socialize online (Hedderson et al., 2023; Rideout & Robb, 2017), developmental research in virtual spaces has gained popularity (Shore et al., 2023), though few studies focus on sharing (Ahl et al., 2023; Straka et al., 2024). A major challenge in this field is balancing emerging technologies (Shore et al., 2023; Tsuji et al., 2022) with sociocultural differences and unequal access to resources worldwide (Amir & McAuliffe, 2020). Individual perceptions of social class and inequality also seem to play a role in resource allocation decisions (Côté et al., 2015; Wei et al., 2022). In our project, led by Global South early-career researchers, we investigate whether online sharing follows similar patterns to in-person studies, such as increased sharing with age (Dunfield & Kuhlmeier, 2014; Fehr et al., 2008) and under observation (Dutra et al., 2018; Engelmann & Rapp, 2018). We compare sharing behavior in Canada and Brazil, countries with differing socioeconomic profiles, and explore the challenges and opportunities of conducting the study in each region. We hypothesize that, as in in-person studies, children will share more as they age and when observed. We also explore subjective socioeconomic status (using an adaptation of the MacArthur scale, Adler et al., 2000; Amir et al., 2019) and the country’s inequality level (using the Gini index, World Bank, 2024) as predictors of sharing. In our study, 3.5- to 11-year-olds played a two-trial Dictator Game, earning virtual coins. In Canada (253 children; M=7.25 years; 140 girls), mixed-linear models confirmed our predictions: sharing (B=.03, p=.009) and equitability (B=.10, p=.004) increased with age, and children were more equitable when observed by an adult (B=.73, p=.015). We are replicating this study with Brazilian children, aiming to compare non-observed versions of the study with 6- to 11-year-olds. A preliminary analysis of 76 Canadian children (M=8.06 years, 42 girls) and 31 Brazilian children (M=7.78 years, 19 girls) revealed a main effect of subjective social status: children who classified themselves lower shared more coins (B=-.29, p=.017) across both countries (Figure 1). This suggests that subjective views of wealth may already shape early decision-making about resources, potentially contributing to systems that perpetuate inequality (Kirkland et al., 2020; Kraus et al., 2012). Further analysis will include how caregiver perceptions of inequality influence children’s sharing decisions (Schmalor & Heine, 2022). We highlight three aspects of our project, inspired by suggested practices for cross-cultural studies (Apicella et al., 2020; Frank et al., 2017). First, our process of translating and adapting the paradigm with consulting committees for both languages (Borsa et al., 2012, Figure 2). Then, ensuring comparability across populations and accounting for testing contexts like COVID-19 in Canada and unstable broadband in Brazil. Last, we discuss the tools used for data management and recruitment. By sharing our experiences conducting research across North and South America, we hope to spark discussion on how multicultural teams can advance the field. |
|
| Paper #4 | |
|---|---|
| Community engaged practices cut across cultural boundaries | |
| Author information | Role |
| Yitong Wang, Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Canada | Presenting author |
| Tanya MacGillivray, Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Canada | Non-presenting author |
| Brianne Peters, CAPSA, Canada | Non-presenting author |
| Abstract | |
|
The field of cross-cultural developmental psychology is fraught with theoretical, methodological, and ethical problems (Miller et al., 2015). Scientists often explore developmental questions in diverse cultural contexts without strong or clear theoretical motivation (with evidence) to examine the question in the community. Additionally, an extractive approach has been the accepted and common practice throughout the field without recognition or an attempt to co-construct knowledge from community members. This is problematic as it takes a hierarchical view of knowledge construction – a view that is persistent in the field. Cross-cultural developmental methods are typically transported from a western design with only futile attempts to modify with community and cultural input, making the relevance and validity questionable. Often this is overlooked and the ‘cultural modification’ to the experimental design is viewed as sufficient and acceptable practice to satisfy the need to make experiments culturally relevant. The problems with an extractive approach cannot be overstated. Recently, the field has begun to address these problems by identifying the issues with study design, implementation, sampling, and interpretation (Broesch et al., 2020; Wefers et al., 2023) as well as calling scientists to improve their research approach with calls for action – to employ more culturally sensitive, and theoretically motivated designs and approaches (Broesch et al., 2020; Nielsen et al., 2017; Oppong, 2023). Here, we argue that a strong shift from a knowledge-extraction to a community engaged practice has the potential to address each of these problems by approaching science with a horizontal perspective aligning with a co-construction of knowledge. Community-engagement has been used in the international development field and has been employed for health sciences and practical applications for decades (Hall, 2024). Yet, community-engagement has posed a problem for academics as it breaks down the system that has upheld academia as a separate entity of knowledge (Lepore et al., 2024). We draw on research from other fields, specifically research with indigenous communities throughout the world to demonstrate 1) the importance of community engaged research practices, 2) the feasibility of the approach, and 3) the specific relevance to cross cultural developmental psychology. We provide concrete examples taken from the social sciences to demonstrate the effectiveness, feasibility and relevance of this approach and how to incorporate this approach into best methodological practices. Lastly, we call for institutional and policy changes that will allow for the co-construction of knowledge in the social sciences. With this change in approach at the individual and institutional level, we will move from an extractive, hierarchical, colonial view of developmental research to an ethical, horizontal, co-construction of knowledge. |
|
⇦ Back to session
Advancing representative science: Challenges and best practices for cross-cultural developmental psychology in the Global South
Submission Type
Paper Symposium
Description
| Session Title | Advancing representative science: Challenges and best practices for cross-cultural developmental psychology in the Global South |