Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T03:32:19.957Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responsible behavioral science generalizations and applications require much more than non-WEIRD samples

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2010

Vladimir J. Konečni
Vladimir J. Konečni
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of California–San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0109. vkonecni@ucsd.eduhttp://psychology.ucsd.edu/people/faculty/vkonecni.php
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There are many methodological considerations – some intricately associated with the use of WEIRD samples – that adversely affect external validity as much as, or even more than, unrepresentative sampling does. Among suspect applications, especially worrisome is the incorporation of WEIRD-based findings regarding moral reasoning and retribution into normative expectations, such as might be held by international criminal tribunals in “cognitively distant” war-torn areas.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 2-3 , June 2010 , pp. 98 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

References

Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1963) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Ebbesen, E. B. & Konečni, V. J. (1975) Decision making and information integration in the courts: The setting of bail. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32:805–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebbesen, E. B., Parker, S. & Konečni, V. J. (1977) Laboratory and field analyses of decisions involving risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 3:576–89.Google Scholar
Konečni, V. J. & Ebbesen, E. B. (1982a) An analysis of the sentencing system. In: The criminal justice system: A social-psychological analysis, ed. Konečni, V. J. & Ebbesen, E. B., pp. 293–332. Freeman.Google Scholar
Konečni, V. J. & Ebbesen, E. B., eds. (1982b) The criminal justice system: A social-psychological analysis, pp. 413–23. Freeman.Google Scholar
Konečni, V. J. & Ebbesen, E. B. (1992) Methodological issues in research on legal decision-making, with special reference to experimental simulations. In: Psychology and law, ed. Lösel, F., Bender, D. & Bliesener, T.. Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Konečni, V. J., Ebbesen, E. B. & Konečni, D. K. (1976) Decision processes and risk taking in traffic: Driver response to the onset of yellow light. Journal of Applied Psychology 61:359–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mook, D. G. (1983) In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist 38(4):379–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D. & Sechrest, L. (1966) Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Rand McNally.Google Scholar