Behavioral science is somewhat of an oxymoron – the attempt to make scientific determinations about something – human behavior – that is inherently malleable, and open to manipulation by choice and circumstance.
When Joe Henrich flung the WEIRD bias into focus he highlighted an indisputable fact about behavioral research; that it is in fact primarily based on western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic populations. The numbers vary across fields, but some suggest within psychology 96% of research involves WEIRD participants, with psychology undergraduates the only participants in 67% of U.S. studies and 80% of studies in other countries.
The inconvenient truth of the ‘convenience sample’
The reality is research isn’t easy. Researchers face the “publish or perish” dilemma, along with a constant struggle to find funding and the stress of securing tenure, so designing the optimal experiment, from a diversity of participants perspective, is almost an unrealistic expectation. Add to this the temptation of easily accessible students needing course credits and it’s not hard to see why this phenomenon exists.
Of course, a lot of research does canvas people from the general population, but the institutional barriers of it often create yet another ‘unnatural’ selection process. Take developmental psychology for example: you’re running a research project on infants, and you need parents to bring their babies to your lab. Most likely it will be located in a metropolitan center, will be open between 9-5 Monday to Friday, and participating will take several hours out of the parent’s day. Already working families in outlying suburbs who can’t afford to sacrifice that time are excluded and those who can attend are more likely to be within a particular demographic or of a similar socioeconomic status.