Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Tests of generalizability can diversify psychology and improve theories

Diversifying psychology is fundamental to good science. Tests of generalizability using diverse samples can inform and constrain theories, leading to scientific progress and cumulative knowledge.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Clancy, K. B. H. & Davis, J. L. Soylent is people, and WEIRD is white: biological anthropology, whiteness, and the limits of the WEIRD. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 48, 169–186 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Thalmayer, A. G., Toscanelli, C. & Arnett, J. J. The neglected 95% revisited: is American psychology becoming less American? Am. Psychol. 76, 116–129 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Patel, V. & Sumathipala, A. International representation in psychiatric journals: a survey of 6 leading journals. Br. J. Psychiatry 178, 406–409 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Roberts, S. O., Bareket-Shavit, C., Dollins, F. A., Goldie, P. D. & Mortenson, E. Racial inequality in psychological research: trends of the past and recommendations for the future. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15, 1295–1309 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Meehl, P. E. Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 46, 806–834 (1978).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. McPhetres, J. et al. A decade of theory as reflected in Psychological Science (2009-2019). PLoS ONE 16, e0247986 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Popper, K. R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Hutchinson, 1959).

  8. Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I. & Alloy, L. B. Hopelessness depression: a theory-based subtype of depression. Psychologic. Rev. 96, 358–372 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Scheel, A. M., Schijen, M. & Lakens, D. An excess of positive results: comparing the standard psychology literature with Registered Reports. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211007467 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y. & Lindsay, D. S. Constraints on generality (COG): a proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12, 1123–1128 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerald J. Haeffel.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haeffel, G.J., Cobb, W.R. Tests of generalizability can diversify psychology and improve theories. Nat Rev Psychol 1, 186–187 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00039-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00039-x

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing