让我们狂野起来:发展心理学理论中不断增加的包容性。

IF 16.6 1区 心理学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Kim A Bard, Heidi Keller, David A Leavens
{"title":"让我们狂野起来:发展心理学理论中不断增加的包容性。","authors":"Kim A Bard, Heidi Keller, David A Leavens","doi":"10.1017/S0140525X25000044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Most scientists are aware that developmental databases derive primarily from Western, middle-class samples, but fewer are cognizant that developmental theories can be similarly biased. There is urgency in revising developmental theories, both scientifically (embracing diversity is essential to the study of human psychology) and applied (it is damaging to apply WEIRD standards/methods/theories to evaluate development in the multitude of non-WEIRD contexts).We evaluate the extent to which two prominent developmental theories are inclusive. We find that Shared Intentionality Theory is based on a WEIRD bias in the foundational databases: the core constructs lack culturally diverse data, undermining claims that this theory explains human-general social cognition. In Attachment Theory, we illuminate the lack of inclusivity in the core assumptions and resulting claims of the meaning and measure of the attachment system: this theory excludes cultural diversity in social-emotional constructs focused on communal orientations (e.g., interdependence, attachment networks) found in many people of the Global South, and neglects culture-specific adaptive behavior patterns.Acknowledging the lack of inclusivity at the level of theory is necessary. We urge researchers to take a more WILD approach: obtain <b>W</b>orldwide samples, study development <b>I</b>n situ, focus on <b>L</b>ocal cultural practices and ethnotheories, and consider development as <b>D</b>iverse. Being WILD entails attending to inclusivity during the entire research process, from framing the research questions to interpreting the data (e.g., respecting all adaptive behaviors in development). Five Steps for Increasing Inclusivity can be used as a practical guide to decenter psychological theories from their current WEIRD mindset.</p>","PeriodicalId":8698,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral and Brain Sciences","volume":" ","pages":"1-60"},"PeriodicalIF":16.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Let's go WILD: Increasing Inclusivity in Theories of Developmental Psychology.\",\"authors\":\"Kim A Bard, Heidi Keller, David A Leavens\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0140525X25000044\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Most scientists are aware that developmental databases derive primarily from Western, middle-class samples, but fewer are cognizant that developmental theories can be similarly biased. There is urgency in revising developmental theories, both scientifically (embracing diversity is essential to the study of human psychology) and applied (it is damaging to apply WEIRD standards/methods/theories to evaluate development in the multitude of non-WEIRD contexts).We evaluate the extent to which two prominent developmental theories are inclusive. We find that Shared Intentionality Theory is based on a WEIRD bias in the foundational databases: the core constructs lack culturally diverse data, undermining claims that this theory explains human-general social cognition. In Attachment Theory, we illuminate the lack of inclusivity in the core assumptions and resulting claims of the meaning and measure of the attachment system: this theory excludes cultural diversity in social-emotional constructs focused on communal orientations (e.g., interdependence, attachment networks) found in many people of the Global South, and neglects culture-specific adaptive behavior patterns.Acknowledging the lack of inclusivity at the level of theory is necessary. We urge researchers to take a more WILD approach: obtain <b>W</b>orldwide samples, study development <b>I</b>n situ, focus on <b>L</b>ocal cultural practices and ethnotheories, and consider development as <b>D</b>iverse. Being WILD entails attending to inclusivity during the entire research process, from framing the research questions to interpreting the data (e.g., respecting all adaptive behaviors in development). Five Steps for Increasing Inclusivity can be used as a practical guide to decenter psychological theories from their current WEIRD mindset.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavioral and Brain Sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-60\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavioral and Brain Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X25000044\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral and Brain Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X25000044","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

大多数科学家都意识到,发展数据库主要来自西方的中产阶级样本,但很少有人认识到,发展理论也可能存在类似的偏见。我们迫切需要修改发展理论,无论是在科学上(拥抱多样性对人类心理学的研究至关重要)还是在应用上(在众多非怪异环境中应用怪异标准/方法/理论来评估发展是有害的)。我们评估这两个突出的发展理论是包容性的程度。我们发现,共享意向性理论是基于基础数据库中的WEIRD偏差:核心结构缺乏文化多样性的数据,这削弱了该理论解释人类一般社会认知的主张。在依恋理论中,我们阐明了在依恋系统的意义和测量的核心假设和由此产生的主张中缺乏包容性:该理论排除了在全球南方许多人身上发现的以公共取向为重点的社会情感结构中的文化多样性(例如,相互依存,依恋网络),并忽略了文化特定的适应性行为模式。承认在理论层面缺乏包容性是必要的。我们敦促研究人员采取更加野生的方法:获取世界范围内的样本,就地研究发展,关注当地的文化实践和民族理论,并将发展视为多样化。WILD需要在整个研究过程中关注包容性,从构建研究问题到解释数据(例如,尊重开发中的所有适应性行为)。提高包容性的五个步骤可以作为一个实用的指南,将心理学理论从他们目前的怪异心态中分离出来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Let's go WILD: Increasing Inclusivity in Theories of Developmental Psychology.

Most scientists are aware that developmental databases derive primarily from Western, middle-class samples, but fewer are cognizant that developmental theories can be similarly biased. There is urgency in revising developmental theories, both scientifically (embracing diversity is essential to the study of human psychology) and applied (it is damaging to apply WEIRD standards/methods/theories to evaluate development in the multitude of non-WEIRD contexts).We evaluate the extent to which two prominent developmental theories are inclusive. We find that Shared Intentionality Theory is based on a WEIRD bias in the foundational databases: the core constructs lack culturally diverse data, undermining claims that this theory explains human-general social cognition. In Attachment Theory, we illuminate the lack of inclusivity in the core assumptions and resulting claims of the meaning and measure of the attachment system: this theory excludes cultural diversity in social-emotional constructs focused on communal orientations (e.g., interdependence, attachment networks) found in many people of the Global South, and neglects culture-specific adaptive behavior patterns.Acknowledging the lack of inclusivity at the level of theory is necessary. We urge researchers to take a more WILD approach: obtain Worldwide samples, study development In situ, focus on Local cultural practices and ethnotheories, and consider development as Diverse. Being WILD entails attending to inclusivity during the entire research process, from framing the research questions to interpreting the data (e.g., respecting all adaptive behaviors in development). Five Steps for Increasing Inclusivity can be used as a practical guide to decenter psychological theories from their current WEIRD mindset.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 医学-行为科学
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
1.70%
发文量
353
期刊介绍: Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS) is a highly respected journal that employs an innovative approach called Open Peer Commentary. This format allows for the publication of noteworthy and contentious research from various fields including psychology, neuroscience, behavioral biology, and cognitive science. Each article is accompanied by 20-40 commentaries from experts across these disciplines, as well as a response from the author themselves. This unique setup creates a captivating forum for the exchange of ideas, critical analysis, and the integration of research within the behavioral and brain sciences, spanning topics from molecular neurobiology and artificial intelligence to the philosophy of the mind.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信